On the eve of the nation’s voters going to the polls, a truth about policymakers’ use of evidence arrives in plain sight. Sure, the obscene spending from Super PACs on political ads shows how evidence can be bent into grotesque shapes to support one candidate over another. Fact-checkers have had a bumper season. But political ads are a genre that all of us can shrug and accept as part of life. Much like accepting that garbage is collected weekly.
But when I read that the U.S. Senate Republican leadership had put pressure on the independent Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan department of the U.S. Library of Congress, to withdraw an economic analysis of the top tax rates and economic growth that the CRS had published in September, well, that was taking away the fig-leaf that covers the persistent practice of decision-makers selectively choosing evidence to support their policies.
The New York Times described Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) questioning the report’s methodologies, language, and conclusions. What did the economist who did the analysis say in the report?
The report’s main point was that no correlation existed between reducing the top tax rates and spurring economic growth, particularly increasing the number of jobs. That conclusion of no association between cutting the tax rates on the wealthy and job growth struck at the heart of the GOP philosophy (and conservative ideology) that Republicans have advanced under two terms of George W. Bush and for which the current Republican candidate for President has campaigned. The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn the report.
That a national newspaper saw fit to publish such a blatant example of powerful decision-makers squelching evidence that challenged a central tenet in a blistering, hard fought campaign for the Presidency underscores how power and ideology again and again trump evidence in national politics.
Not only in national campaigns for high office but also in school politics and reform.
Consider the three-decade long, unrelenting promotion of classroom computers and online instruction. A recently mobilized corporate and civic-driven coalition chaired by two ex-state governors issued a report that touted online instruction as a way to transform teaching and learning in U.S. schools. (p. 19 of Digital Learning Now Report FINAL lists corporate, foundation, and top policymakers who participated).
Evidence that regular instructional use of these machines will transform teaching and learning is barely visible. Furthermore, evidence of students’ academic achievement gains attributed to online instruction, laptops, and other hardware and software in schools is missing-in-action. And the dream that school use of these machines and applications will lead to better jobs (except in programs where technical certificates can lead to work–e.g., Cisc0), well, I won’t even mention the scarcity of evidence to support that dream.
So what do these two-governors champion in their Digital Learning Commission report?
“Providing a customized, personalized education for students was a dream just a decade ago. Technology can turn that dream into reality today. The Digital Learning Council will develop the roadmap to achieve that ultimate goal.”
Sure, this is an advertisement pushing for-profit online outfits such as for-profit K12 and non-profit projects such as the Florida Virtual School and “hybrid” schools. See here and here. These ex-governors want states to alter their policies to accommodate this “Brave New World” where students get individual lessons tailored to what they need to learn.
Question: After decades of blue-ribbon commissions issuing utopian reports promising “revolutionary” and “transformed” schools, where is the evidence that such futures are either possible or worthwhile?
Answer: When it comes to technology policy, evidence doesn’t matter.
The rational part of me still expects top decision-makers, even ex-governors, to use the best evidence available to support proposed directions. The real-world political part of me, however, recognizes that policy elites cherry-pick studies and facts to support decisions already determined. I guess I am still innocent enough to expect top decision-makers faced with an accumulation of evidence that runs counter to their advocacy of technology policies, at the very least, would pull up their socks and admit that they either goofed or would reconsider their decision. They won’t because Oops! is taboo in policymakers’ vocabulary.
I would find the expression of honest doubts about policies derived from facts, not faith, to be both refreshing and courageous.
Don’t count on it, however, from Senator Mitch McConnell or Mitt Romney. Don’t count on it either from those ex-state governors and members who serve on the Digital Learning Commission.
Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice 
This is a very powerful piece,Larry, and especially resonates for those of us still in the trenches. I was wondering: what is your take on the growing power of Pearson, which makes both PowerSchool , textbooks and online tests? That is an under-reported story.
Louise,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. As for Pearson’s influence on policymaking and practice, New York Times’ columnist Gail Collins did a piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/opinion/collins-a-very-pricey-pineapple.html?_r=2&😉 and a UK columnist in the Guardian did one for British schools (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/16/pearson-multinational-influence-education-poliy). I agree that the giant publisher’s influence on everything from student management data through textbooks, and tests is under-reported.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
As always Larry appreciate the argument.
I see this not as a piece on value of educational technology per se (which we’ve discussed elsewhere). Rather it seek to link politics as a rationale for edtech shortcomings. If politics (power over potential) is the definer of educational value then we’re all doomed. Perhaps part of the problem is best exemplified through the reference to calls for “evidence that such futures are either possible or worthwhile.” Whatever side one wishes to take, falling back on futures (which by definition are unknown, but to human nature predictable) leaves us all where we wish to start from (which is a philosophical issue). Confirms to me that we need to ensure we teach critical thinking for our young to be able to understand argument strengths and weaknesses.
On a practical side, there is evidence that online learning is ‘disrupting’ education, such as shown in http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506351/the-most-important-education-technology-in-200-years/ (while accepting the headline is hyperbole, nevertheless to what final ends I cannot say but only influence), and that educational research relating to learning technologies is a clouded enterprise (www.citejournal.org/articles/v5i2seminal1.pdf) although this should not stop us from trying to seek clarity.
As always much to learn in changing times.
John
Thanks, John, for your comment and the two links.
Sorry to come late to this. I saw it in a recent NASSP update.
With all due respect, I think your use of the tax report as an example makes the very mistake you warn against here, which is to leave out some key evidence regarding the incident. In a November 2nd editorial entitled Congressional Research Hit Job, The Wall Street Journal noted that the researcher who wrote the report donated to the Obama and Democratic senate campaigns and worked in the White House budget office under Bill Clinton. It also noted that “the study has statistical design flaws and ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies that have found a significant relationship between cuts in tax rates and the pace of capital formation, investment and economic growth.” Finally, it quoted a CRS spokeswoman who said that “to my knowledge, CRS has never taken out of circulation a study based solely on comments from Members of Congress or a Congressional committee” and “this one wasn’t,” suggesting that it was the study’s flaws and not the pressure from Senate Republicans, that led to its removal. Maybe this telling doesn’t represent the final truth of the matter either, but it does help remind us that not just political and corporate leaders but also government researchers, New York Times reporters and, well, all of us if we’re not careful, can fall prey to the danger of not making use of the best evidence available before we draw conclusions.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Tom. I agree that those who write blogs, report the news, and comment on the day’s events need to be careful in assessing evidence.