Data driven teaching and classroom management is the method du jour, and in order to have this data, if it is not collected ourselves, then it is derived from educational research.  The data we collect ourselves can obviously be flawed, depending on whether  those involved participate correctly and then how the data is interpreted.  This interpretation can be skewed depending on what angle you approach the issue, meaning the research can back up just about anything you want.  And like anything else, if you take it out of context from other research and just pick and choose you’re likely to do more harm than good.

For instance, as educators, we’re all about engagement strategies.  How do we keep kids engaged in learning?  So we have Kagan and cooperative learning, Marzano research, growth mindset, Anita Archer explicit instructions among many others.  Some research says technology is the answer to engagement while other research says too much technology is hurting our students.  And yet, other research tells us that all we need to do is have more involvement in the arts and more recess to increase engagement.  Some research says it’s a simple matter of even more time needed in all areas of academics with “enrichment” classes to keep students engaged.  Not sure what was was meant by “enrichment” but what does that say about how students engage in “academic” classes otherwise?  Perhaps we need to have music, PE, and art to keep kids engaged in what I’ve heard labeled as the “hard classes”?  Don’t get me started.

In academia however, sometimes the bottom line is not really the kids or the teachers, it’s about money and results.  So what we end up doing is using research to fit our plan rather than drive our plan.  For instance, the powers that be decide that classroom management issues are due to lack of engagement and find research that backs up that theory.  They then provide teachers with required professional development because the research says this will work. This is a much less expensive option than let’s say, the research says that children need more recess, but that means we’ll have to extend the school day to get in the needed academics and that means we’ll have to pay teachers more.  I once had a conversation with a supervisor and when I questioned a situation because I felt it would be detrimental to the students, he actually said, and this is a quote – it’s not about the kids.  It’s about fulfilling contracts.

So why all the research driven teaching when common sense tells us otherwise?  Accountability to the tax paying public and legislators is usually the answer.  Even if there remains a problem, it sounds better to say that the district is investing in research based, data driven strategies to increase engagement and achievement rather than say we’re providing more recess to help the students reboot cognitively I suppose.  And because the public perception right now is that a school that is technologically forward thinking is a great thing, using research that says too much screen time for children is harmful could be detrimental when it comes to public support.

An analogy I could use is people who pick and choose passages out of the Bible that fit them and what they want to believe rather than changing their lives to reflect the passages.  We all do it.  Chances are it’s easier but the question is,  is it right and in this culture, does doing what’s right matter anymore to people?  We’ve made everything so complicated and burdensome to everyone involved when the only question we should be asking is what is best for children?  Is starting academics the second they walk in the Kindergarten door best for children or is working on soft skills like working together, following directions and sharing?  We know littles don’t multi-task well, that’s why we give only one direction at a time to start.  Why then would we expect them to just pick up the soft skills while they’re learning academics?  It makes no sense.  And not having those soft skills may be what is causing the issues with behavior and classroom management later which can hinder engagement.  Am I oversimplifying?  Maybe.  But as professionals, there are things we know to be true about children and sometimes the research we’re expected to follow tells us the complete opposite.

Research is important and used in the right way, can be a great help to teachers and their students.  But when we pick and choose the research to fuel our own agenda in academia, are we really serving our students the way we could and should, or are we answering to others instead?  Like everything else in life, don’t always take things at face value – test it to see if what you’ve chosen helps our bottom line as teachers – our students.