Researchers Jim Hewitt and Nidhi Sachdeva on the belief-based status quo of education, the science of learning, and the culture shift necessary to prioritize evidence-based practices.
What follows is my comment on Jim and Nidhis' substack article: "As the author of "Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices," I want to extend my sincere thanks to Jim Hewitt and Nidhi Sachdeva for so powerfully building upon the foundation I laid 25 years ago. Their recent essay breathes new life into those early assertions, transforming them into a well-reasoned, deeply researched, and urgently relevant call to action for 2025 and beyond. What makes their contribution so impactful is not only the clarity of their critique but the depth of their scholarship. They draw upon a rich body of research accumulated over the past quarter-century—research that strengthens their arguments and makes their recommendations both timely and essential. I could easily point to a dozen or more ways in which they integrate these findings to illuminate the path forward for education reform. As they so compellingly argue, while evidence-based professions have driven remarkable progress in fields like medicine and engineering over the past 50 years, education has seen only modest gains—particularly reflected in the stagnation of NAEP scores. Their analysis underscores the urgent need to bring the same rigor and accountability to education. It is precisely this kind of evidence-driven advocacy that, as Linda Diamond noted in comment, inspired her, Kelly Butler, Reid Lyon, and me to launch the Evidence Advocacy Center. Jim and Nidhi’s work exemplifies the mission we envisioned: to empower educators with the tools, knowledge, and support they need to drive meaningful improvements in student achievement.
"The science of learning shouldn’t be seen as a set of practices to be accepted on faith. Rather it’s a growing body of evidence that helps us understand what works in education, and why."
Doug Carnine has again focused on education as a science-based profession with the launch of the Evidence Advocacy Center. Now over 100 volunteer researchers, educations from higher ed and practitioners have joined Doug' efforts. The momentum is building. Thank you Robert Pondiscio with this important reminder of what is necessary.
Around ten years ago I had personal experience with how emotionally attached teachers can be to beliefs that no credible research supports. I got into a (at first) cordial discussion with a high school teacher named Alice after our book club meeting ended. By-the-by Alice mentioned that her students had diverse learning styles: auditory, visual, kinesthetic, etc. I responded (in an even tone of voice) that that topic had been deeply researched by numerous cognitive scientists, all of whom had concluded that learning styles were not in the least supported by the evidence from controlled studies. We went back and forth a few times, and she got visibly angry and said those cognitive scientists were just ivory-towered professors with no real world experience, and furthermore how dare I - a mere layman - question the authority of anyone with many years of classroom experience. She had attended many of our book club meetings before then, but that week she dropped out of the group and never came back.
The belief in learning styles is widespread in the general population because to almost everyone it seems like those styles would be personal preferences that vary from person to person. I like vanilla, you like chocolate; I root for the Packers, you root for the Bills; I learn best by hearing information, you learn best by reading that information. A few days ago a neighbor informed me that his learning style is auditory. A very democratic sentiment but not scientifically valid.
As a former teacher of 16 years, I can attest to all of the fads. I believe there will be a lot of resistance among veteran teachers as we have seen so many changes about what supposedly works. And definitely teacher training and professional development has lagged behind in getting to this point.
So glad you chose to highlight this article. Additionally, I encourage everyone reading this to read the article that inspired it, which was referenced on Jim's and Nidhi's Substack, or get it here: https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/teach.profession.carnine.pdf
It was a chilling read for me, because the 25 year old article could have been written yesterday. In it, Carnine writes, "Based on the experience of other fields, it seems likely that intense and sustained outside pressure will be needed." He continues: "The metamorphosis is often triggered by a catalyst, such as pressure from groups that are adversely affected by the poor quality of service provided by a profession."
On the original piece by Jim and Nidhi, I wondered if the catalyst might be Covid and Emily Hanford's, "Sold a Story."
As for the pressure, not enough people listen to teachers or trust them; we need parents to speak up. I see that happening, but mostly from parents on the Right whose concerns seem to focus primarily on gender ideology. We need parents from ALL political persuasions to speak up about the fundamental concerns we all (I hope) share: that kids need to learn how to read, write, and think.
Ironic that I came upon this article one day after finishing reading "Reduced Recidivism and Increased Employment Opportunity Through Research-Based Reading Instruction" (online here: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/141324NCJRS.pdf). This earlier paper, released in January, 1993, draws similar conclusions regarding how what gets taught in education schools isn't driven by scientific study, offering comments like:
"...the professors on whom the publishing houses rely for advice in developing reading programs were not at all influenced by experimental research findings. It appears they prefer to remain willfully ignorant about this research."
Clearly, the problem has been recognized for decades and continues today.
What's hard to understand is how society, faced with decades of evidence of poor student performance, has not demanded better. Can it be that policy makers and other influential entities just don't really care? How do we change that?
We are invited to believe that, like medicine, educational should become a "science-based profession". Medicine is purported to have increased average lifespan.
But the historical record shows that many people lived to 70 and beyond in pre-industrial societies. Average lifespan increased primarily because of advance in hygiene and nutrition, not because of the germ theory of disease.
Why yes, scientific medicine has indeed reduced a certain group of diseases. On the other hand, some diseases have become more frequent and deadly under the sway of modern medicine.
If this plea to make education "scientific" took itself seriously, it would roll out a substantial body of evidence that its so-called "scientific-based" educational practices actually improve results.
Instead, like all the other nostrums we teachers cope with, it is a belief to be taken on faith.
We re to believe that scientific education, whatever that might be, is somehow better.
What follows is my comment on Jim and Nidhis' substack article: "As the author of "Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices," I want to extend my sincere thanks to Jim Hewitt and Nidhi Sachdeva for so powerfully building upon the foundation I laid 25 years ago. Their recent essay breathes new life into those early assertions, transforming them into a well-reasoned, deeply researched, and urgently relevant call to action for 2025 and beyond. What makes their contribution so impactful is not only the clarity of their critique but the depth of their scholarship. They draw upon a rich body of research accumulated over the past quarter-century—research that strengthens their arguments and makes their recommendations both timely and essential. I could easily point to a dozen or more ways in which they integrate these findings to illuminate the path forward for education reform. As they so compellingly argue, while evidence-based professions have driven remarkable progress in fields like medicine and engineering over the past 50 years, education has seen only modest gains—particularly reflected in the stagnation of NAEP scores. Their analysis underscores the urgent need to bring the same rigor and accountability to education. It is precisely this kind of evidence-driven advocacy that, as Linda Diamond noted in comment, inspired her, Kelly Butler, Reid Lyon, and me to launch the Evidence Advocacy Center. Jim and Nidhi’s work exemplifies the mission we envisioned: to empower educators with the tools, knowledge, and support they need to drive meaningful improvements in student achievement.
"The science of learning shouldn’t be seen as a set of practices to be accepted on faith. Rather it’s a growing body of evidence that helps us understand what works in education, and why."
Discovering the science of learning has been a game changer for me. I wrote about it in The Science of Reading Meets the Science of Learning (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/the-science-of-reading-meets-the?r=5spuf). Thanks so much for sharing this important post!
Here's my contribution to the discussion, inspired in part by this blog. Listening to the Experts Doesn't Mean Giving Them the Last Word: Separating science from sentiment (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/listening-to-the-experts-doesnt-mean?r=5spuf).
Doug Carnine has again focused on education as a science-based profession with the launch of the Evidence Advocacy Center. Now over 100 volunteer researchers, educations from higher ed and practitioners have joined Doug' efforts. The momentum is building. Thank you Robert Pondiscio with this important reminder of what is necessary.
I don't know this subject, and having read the essay I still know very little.
Around ten years ago I had personal experience with how emotionally attached teachers can be to beliefs that no credible research supports. I got into a (at first) cordial discussion with a high school teacher named Alice after our book club meeting ended. By-the-by Alice mentioned that her students had diverse learning styles: auditory, visual, kinesthetic, etc. I responded (in an even tone of voice) that that topic had been deeply researched by numerous cognitive scientists, all of whom had concluded that learning styles were not in the least supported by the evidence from controlled studies. We went back and forth a few times, and she got visibly angry and said those cognitive scientists were just ivory-towered professors with no real world experience, and furthermore how dare I - a mere layman - question the authority of anyone with many years of classroom experience. She had attended many of our book club meetings before then, but that week she dropped out of the group and never came back.
The belief in learning styles is widespread in the general population because to almost everyone it seems like those styles would be personal preferences that vary from person to person. I like vanilla, you like chocolate; I root for the Packers, you root for the Bills; I learn best by hearing information, you learn best by reading that information. A few days ago a neighbor informed me that his learning style is auditory. A very democratic sentiment but not scientifically valid.
As a former teacher of 16 years, I can attest to all of the fads. I believe there will be a lot of resistance among veteran teachers as we have seen so many changes about what supposedly works. And definitely teacher training and professional development has lagged behind in getting to this point.
John Taylor Gatto says Hello ....
So glad you chose to highlight this article. Additionally, I encourage everyone reading this to read the article that inspired it, which was referenced on Jim's and Nidhi's Substack, or get it here: https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/teach.profession.carnine.pdf
It was a chilling read for me, because the 25 year old article could have been written yesterday. In it, Carnine writes, "Based on the experience of other fields, it seems likely that intense and sustained outside pressure will be needed." He continues: "The metamorphosis is often triggered by a catalyst, such as pressure from groups that are adversely affected by the poor quality of service provided by a profession."
On the original piece by Jim and Nidhi, I wondered if the catalyst might be Covid and Emily Hanford's, "Sold a Story."
As for the pressure, not enough people listen to teachers or trust them; we need parents to speak up. I see that happening, but mostly from parents on the Right whose concerns seem to focus primarily on gender ideology. We need parents from ALL political persuasions to speak up about the fundamental concerns we all (I hope) share: that kids need to learn how to read, write, and think.
Ironic that I came upon this article one day after finishing reading "Reduced Recidivism and Increased Employment Opportunity Through Research-Based Reading Instruction" (online here: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/141324NCJRS.pdf). This earlier paper, released in January, 1993, draws similar conclusions regarding how what gets taught in education schools isn't driven by scientific study, offering comments like:
"...the professors on whom the publishing houses rely for advice in developing reading programs were not at all influenced by experimental research findings. It appears they prefer to remain willfully ignorant about this research."
Clearly, the problem has been recognized for decades and continues today.
What's hard to understand is how society, faced with decades of evidence of poor student performance, has not demanded better. Can it be that policy makers and other influential entities just don't really care? How do we change that?
We are invited to believe that, like medicine, educational should become a "science-based profession". Medicine is purported to have increased average lifespan.
But the historical record shows that many people lived to 70 and beyond in pre-industrial societies. Average lifespan increased primarily because of advance in hygiene and nutrition, not because of the germ theory of disease.
Why yes, scientific medicine has indeed reduced a certain group of diseases. On the other hand, some diseases have become more frequent and deadly under the sway of modern medicine.
If this plea to make education "scientific" took itself seriously, it would roll out a substantial body of evidence that its so-called "scientific-based" educational practices actually improve results.
Instead, like all the other nostrums we teachers cope with, it is a belief to be taken on faith.
We re to believe that scientific education, whatever that might be, is somehow better.
Color me unconvinced.