Robin SmithThe most frequently discussed topic associated with education over the last two years has been the national standards, Common Core.
This is no piece to defend nor to demonize the political hot potato that has been a litmus test for voters in political campaigns and debate fodder for those who enjoy the argument.
The term "standards," however, should either be vigorously challenged or else not used when speaking of education criteria that has demonstrated success.
Why?
Good policy should be based on data, research and demonstrated repeated outcomes.
Ask anyone who works in a science-driven profession if replication of results is important, and you will receive a resounding "yes!"
Science involves knowledge and theory that are challenged, tested, and proven or disproven. Good science, I was taught, replicates. You see, replication of results are a foundation of the scientific method.
The scientific method gives us beneficial health care treatments and medicines, the composition of asphalt to withstand extreme weather, airbags in our vehicles and even cooking instructions on food packages, just to name a few common encounters with replication that yields a standard or consistent result.
What in this world does this have to do with the discipline of education?
A standard is formulated and set with the goal to establish a favorable outcome or desired end result.
Yet, a recently published study, "Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences," revealed some stunning information in the area of educational research. After a review of the "complete publication history of the current top 100 education journals" used to develop policy and practice, only 0.13 percent of these articles discussing research were replicated.
Less than 1 percent.
In the paper's conclusion by authors Dr. Matthew Makel of Duke University and Dr. Johnathan Plucker of Connecticut University, these statements make the point: "However, implicitly or explicitly dismissing replication indicates a value of novelty over truth and a serious misunderstanding of both science and creativity. If education research is to be relied upon to develop sound policy and practice, then conducting replications on important findings is essential to moving toward a more reliable and trustworthy understanding of educational environments."
Now for the application to education's current state of existence. As the debate continues over "standards," understand that a lot of that which is referred to as the marks that must be met for educational competence, mastery and success are not proven standards.
The painful conclusion of this study published last month is that our children's educational experience is not driven by sound practice based on research that has been tested and proven to yield consistent results. "Despite the benefits that replication brings to the research table, conducting replication is largely viewed in the social science research community as lacking prestige, originality or excitement, a bias not shared in the natural sciences."
In an interview by Inside Higher Ed online, Dr. Makel observed, "If we can't confirm our own results, then we lose the public trust and any credibility we hope to have on influencing policy." The article's co-author, Dr. Plucker, noted, "We have better data, we have better data systems. Now that we have those things, we really need a culture of replication and data-sharing to move us to the next level and keep this positive trajectory ... . Without replication, we'll never know which research sits on a foundation of stone and which sits on a foundation of sand."
As Tennessee's governor and General Assembly continue their deliberations and vetting of the Common Core standards, let us all be mindful that a critical need exists for authentic standards.
Robin Smith, immediate past Tennessee Republican Party chairwoman, is owner of Rivers Edge Alliance.