Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity


Posted at 3:00 AM ET, 03/ 8/2011

Why schools should try things not "research-based"

By Valerie Strauss

This was written by Raymond J. McNulty, president of the International Center for Leadership in Education, a New York-based organization that assists schools and districts in implementing organizational change.

By Raymond J. McNulty
In the national quest to reform our K-12 school system, a buzz phrase in schools across the country has been "research-based best practices."

Who can argue against what seems to be working in the best schools in the country – and what has been proven to work in the past? With pressure to meet adequate yearly progress as required under No Child Left Behind, to use data at every turn, to help meet the needs of every child – and to do all of this on the taxpayer’s dime – schools feel the pressure to show proof that their techniques deliver results.

But if we want to see real change in our schools and move the needle on closing the achievement gap, we need to try some things that aren’t “proven.” We need to experiment with practices we intuitively think are good ideas and can deliver results but haven’t been subject to exhaustive research yet.

Education leaders insist that they want their schools to be innovative, yet if a teacher offers a new idea, a common response is: "That’s sounds like a good idea, but where is the data that proves it will work?"

Introducing truly novel ideas means considering something so new that it has not been proven to work. Critics will say we shouldn’t be experimenting on our young people, and I’m not suggesting we ditch our best practices and research-based strategies. Hard data is an important component in the school-improvement process.

But if the current system isn’t working, then we should do what innovators and entrepreneurs have done since the dawn of humanity — try something different. Any educator knows that some of the latest research-based best practices come out of a 20th century classroom. Most of them are textbook driven, classroom driven, and teacher directed. That type of classroom is not a reflection of the future, so we have to break away from some of the research-based best practices and use what the business world and a few education leaders refer to as "next practices."

The concept is simple: Schools should focus 20-to-30 percent of their resources on true innovation and “next practices.” Next practices aren’t necessarily about being better; they’re about being different. Teachers should be encouraged and empowered to experiment and try new things. Then, when some of these ideas become accepted best practices, schools should already be working toward a new set of next practices.

The overarching lesson here is that making a better 20th century school is not the solution to school reform. Singapore realized this several years ago when it required all teachers to work with e-learning techniques and strategies, even if they don’t actually teach online on a regular basis. Education leaders there believe that students will need to be adept at using technology throughout their careers and the world beyond school.

Moreover, 100 percent of Singapore secondary teachers use online learning in combination with face-to-face instruction.

Michigan is one of the few states that is experimenting with next practices. In 2008, the state fully implemented a seat-time waiver program that allows high school and middle school students in participating districts to take courses by certified teachers online and off campus. Many students who have been granted these waivers were either dropouts or at risk of dropping out. Seat-time waivers are also granted to students seeking courses not offered by their home schools or students with physical disabilities.

Are seat-time waivers helping to improve student performance? There probably is no conclusive data so far. But what we do know is that learning happens 24/7 in today’s world of ubiquitous, in-your-pocket access to the Internet. To dismiss the possibilities of online learning because it doesn’t meet the standards of “best practices” is to turn away from a tool that has already changed the way kids (and adults) communicate, collaborate and consume information and allows students of varying skills and interests to pursue their passions.

In Michigan, best practices would have required every student to take district-approved courses by district-managed instructors. But this next practice might very well transform the way students learn and better prepare them for college and careers.

Our greatest innovators have long embraced the need to try something completely new in order to discover the next great idea. During the earliest stages of the automobile industry, when horses were still the main mode of transportation, Henry Ford said, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

Follow my blog every day by bookmarking washingtonpost.com/answersheet. And for admissions advice, college news and links to campus papers, please check out our Higher Education page at washingtonpost.com/higher-ed Bookmark it!


By Valerie Strauss  | March 8, 2011; 3:00 AM ET
Categories:  Guest Bloggers  | Tags:  20th century schools, 21st century classroom, best practices, education buzzwords, research-based  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Few schools enter contest for Obama commencement speech
Next: The ed report that all 'reformers' should read

Comments

That's an interesting perspective. Here's a somewhat different take on research-based methods.

I am an Autistic Support teacher in Philadelphia. My students come into my K-2 classroom largely unable to read, write or do basic math. The vast majority are nowhere near kindergarten readiness. They have communication, self-care and behavioral challenges in addition to learning needs. So what interventions do I implement, those with a track record of success or those that may be an interesting idea but may prove no better or actually worse than those with a research base?

You see, when you have students who literally have no more time to waste, you have to do what you know works in the short time you have. Should there be room for innovation? Yes, as long as it doesn't take away from instructional time using research-based methods.

Posted by: Nikki1231 | March 8, 2011 6:02 AM | Report abuse

That's an interesting perspective. Here's a somewhat different take on research-based methods.

I am an Autistic Support teacher in Philadelphia. My students come into my K-2 classroom largely unable to read, write or do basic math. The vast majority are nowhere near kindergarten readiness. They have communication, self-care and behavioral challenges in addition to learning needs. So what interventions do I implement, those with a track record of success or those that may be an interesting idea but may prove no better or actually worse than those with a research base?

You see, when you have students who literally have no more time to waste, you have to do what you know works in the short time you have. Should there be room for innovation? Yes, as long as it doesn't take away from instructional time using research-based methods.

Posted by: Nikki1231 | March 8, 2011 6:03 AM | Report abuse

sorry for multiple post. oops

Posted by: Nikki1231 | March 8, 2011 6:04 AM | Report abuse

Seat-time waivers call to mind a recent idea from forward-thinking author Dan Pink, who suggested that schools might give students (and teachers) "FedEx days" to work on their own ideas for presentation. Might help with that creativity crisis we're having too. Here's Pink's comment:
http://bit.ly/dpink-fedex-day

Posted by: JohnN1 | March 8, 2011 8:40 AM | Report abuse

I'm a researcher and educational technology developer. I agree we need to try new things, even if they haven't been researched yet. But I would say that you need to have a solid and continually up to date understanding of how people learn, the best instructional techniques, the latest research, the latest technologies.

That would help you avoid spending too much energy or money on things that really aren't that new, or don't seem to be designed with better teaching and learning in mind. And you have to be willing to change the way things are done, become more student and learner-centered.

Unfortunately, usually teachers aren't given enough control to make big changes or make decisions about new technologies or programs to use.

But remember, you can always research it yourself. Check out design-based research, for example. Try something new and compare students' scores or surveys of their interest to the old way - is it better? Then try to tweak it some more and redesign it, can you improve it even more?

Posted by: DougHolton | March 8, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Raymond McNulty is SO right on this; if for no other reason than the time factor - by the time researchers get around to proving something, 10, 20, 35 years have gone by.

EX: 29 years ago, when the first fledgling violent video games were becoming widely available,I was in a graduate Art Education class and we were discussing our concern that the violent imagery constantly bombarding young minds was a problem, particularly the aspect of mass desensitization. YESTERDAY, researchers finally came out and announced sobering, dire findings based on studies of 80,000 people between the ages of 16-24. There have been other reports in the meantime, but for the most part they have been trivialized.

We are too enamored of research in areas that are often fuzzy, have too many variables, and will help politicians play it safe. In the meantime, children have grown up.

Posted by: PLMichaelsArtist-at-Large | March 8, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I think many times school leaders pay attention to "right here right now" research and don't necessarily look at the research that shows how proven strategies and programs have worked or not worked over time. How will the "flavor of the month" reading program data compare to more than 20 years of research that prove that the quality of a school library media program has a greater impact on student achievement on standardized tests than almost any other factor. But, our leaders are cutting library media specialist jobs and library budgets because these things are now considered luxuries and not necessities. I wonder what my student's STEM Fair and National History Day projects will look like next year when his librarian is only a .3 employee?

Posted by: ady711 | March 8, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

What a silly title on this article! You should change it, as it is actually encouraging experimentation and research, not discouraging it. Of course, it pretends like it isn't, but when you systematically try something and measure the results, it is research... What we say no to is when someone just wants to try something without a framework to determine its effectiveness.

Posted by: staticvars | March 8, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company