Opinion leaders, clerics, moralists, participants in public affairs who wish to transcend popular opinion to get closer to the true nature of problems and solutions, must have sources of objective knowledge about issues. Writers such as Thomas Friedman do not serve this need since their concerns are of not driven by a serious concern about matters public policy that would lead them into scientific understanding. They seem to have no interest in going beyond what is found in the popular media. It seems apparent that the reason is that they intend on achieving popular appeal, the criterion for the popular press, rather than achieving a scientific understanding. They are not interested in conducting serious inquiry into problems and causes.
Writers, like politicians—even though they may express interesting
and appealing thought but who lack a scientific grounding—offer little of substance
that can be of interest or value to the serious analyst. Such popular
expressions “sell” to certain subgroups of society and may be fun to read but they
are not of value if one is to be serious about investigating problems with
precision and explicating causes with coherence. That understanding comes from science,
not the popular press. We can see in Thomas Friedman an example of writing popular
in the press. Let’s look at one of his opinion pieces, “Can’t We Do Better?”
From the PISA assessment results, Thomas Friedman points
out how poorly U.S. 15-year-olds are doing compared to students from other
countries. His opinion: “it wasn’t pretty.” Since we are “now in an era in
which globalization and the information technology revolution have merged to
drastically shrink what was the basis of our middle class for so many years,
the “high-wage, middle-skilled” job,” he believes it important to do better. Who
couldn’t agree? And among those who have looked seriously at public education
in the last 3 decades who has disagreed that participation in the increasingly
complex technological society requires an intellectual development not formerly
required for working in factories? And who would not agree that more money has
had no effect, that per pupil spending has risen dramatically and performance
indicators have remained essentially flat?
So if that is the situation, what
exactly does he see as the problem and what exactly is the cause?
As to the problem, how does Friedman define it? He speaks
of students’ motivation and ownership of learning. Is he saying it lies with the
consumer of public education, the children?
He speaks of professional autonomy and development time
for teachers. Does the problem lie with the provider of public education?
He speaks of Republicans who block investments in
education programs. Does it lie with lack of money?
He speaks of the threatening long-term entitlement
spending. Does it lie with lack of money?
He speaks of blocking reforms giving teachers ownership
and accountability. Does it lie with teacher unions? The public school system?
Although societal factors are another cause often
mentioned, he omits mention of poverty, bad family background, sub cultures
that de-value education, the lure of employment, baby making attractions, low
graduation rates. Does the cause lie with the proportion of rotten kids schools
must work with?
As to solutions, Thomas Friedman touches on all these factors but since he is much too vague
and overly general in defining precisely what the problem is much less the causes, he cannot offer anything other than solutions that are also weak, broad, vague
solutions. His solutions aren’t specifics of design but largely hopes and dreams; they are not
the powerful methods of redesign of public schooling that we need if we are to change the persistent and
startlingly poor results of test scores (if such test scores are even the
problem).
Scientific research necessarily produces a certain power
of specificity in understanding the nature and cause of things since it only
advances by careful specification and delimitation of a problem. Poorly stated,
vague problems can’t be objectively investigated. In defining a problem scientist
do not say, “Oh, some living things are struggling to survive.” They speak
precisely of a particular sub-species in a well-defined region of Wyoming that
is measured over time to reveal the rate of decline. They do not speculate.
They do the work of abstracting the particular factor causing the decline—a
disease, a property rights conflict with farmers’ sheep, declining habitat, or
whatever and use methods fitted to the problem to verify it. Furthermore, the generalities
of science are not global, unanalyzed notions but wholes that are composed of
many differentiated, precise specifics. They don’t tend toward simple empirical
generalizations like 42% are Democratic and 38% Republican, but tend toward theoretic
generalizations that transcend empirical facts, such as E=mc2. Theoretic
explanations do not come from empirical data.
Science is comparative, puts things into an historic
framework, considers all possible interpretations and theories. Then fashions
precise methods by which the one true solution can be verified. Science does
not find an interesting finding reported from a researcher from which an
opinion piece can be written. It conducts a review of all the literature before
hypothesizing possible solutions which must be investigated. With such
specificity and verification of methods and causal explanations, biological or
social engineers can then carefully design, test, re-design interventions over
time. There is no one-shot big ticket solution from a blue ribbon committee,
only step-by-step marginal improvements gradually making things better over
time. We see little of this in public education. Instead we get data-free
speculation and grand reforms with little respect for the history of education
and its gradual, marginal changes over time. Without considerably more
definitional power as to problems and causal analysis, that is, science,
solutions are little more than subjective pronouncements that easily lapse into
ideological assertions. But speculation is popular, accepted, and that perhaps is
why education reform is such a booming business for reformers.
So there is actually not just one but two problems. The
one problem addressed by Friedman is that of the poor performance of U.S.
students. But the secondary one is the problem of why public education reform is
dominated by data free analysis and speculation by writers like Friedman. The scientific problem here is to precisely describe the seeral levels
of scholarship and understanding of public systems and then
investigate the causes of the development of these understanding, or in this case of public education, the
lack of development that seem so widespread. How exactly do we explain why so many think they are expert in
public education matters and worthy of publication in the national press and
why so many believe in these writers? Why are their opinions popular? Should we speculate and guess or
just as with the first problem of student development, should we seek
turn the problem into a scientific one by seeking some scientific specificity as to the definition of this secondary problem and the pursue its
causes. It means coupling precision with objective methods of investigation so
as to confirm which of possible hypothetical deductive explanations for
Friedman’s and others’ thinking about our public education system. Science moves
us step-by-step toward the truth. Ideology expresses belief, and it blocks advancement.
People may well disagree with a framework which sets belief
and speculation in opposition to science. But even this hypothetical framework
must transcend speculation and belief by withlding judgment until it is submitted to scientific investigation.
Scientifically we can investigate whether a government system of schools can
ever be reformed so as to be high performing and non-discriminatory for all subgroups,
and scientifically and regardless of the answer to the first question of whether government
systems can be made to work well, we can scientifically investigate the nature of people’s beliefs
about public schools and the differences among people that appear at each stage in the development of their thought about public systems.
One thing is clear. Public school systems will continue to be static
organizations in their system design and performance until change is no longer
based on policies of popular speculation, belief, and ideology. Actual development of a better system design can only happen
when leaders reject the kind of thinking and writing a Thomas Friedman produces
and turn to science. Leaders must leave the popular press to the citizens and draw their understanding and wisdom from science.
