Is “The Science” Ever “Settled”?
Posting a promotion for a new educator this past week has been an interesting experience. I had the comment that, “The "reading wars" is a very old term that is only accurate for what was happening decades ago before the absolute avalanche of evidence and studies in the field - the "war", as they say, is over. The science is very clear and it does not at all support what Davis does.” I couldn’t help but wonder at the absolute certainty, and how vehemently, this person was defending her view on the teaching of reading. It was very obvious that she had not read the paper (of which I am the researcher and author) I had offered as a more balanced view, however, she still made some absolutely categorical and defamatory statements with all the confidence of “the science” being behind her. Although, this isn’t pertinent to this discussion, I must note that when asked to produce the studies that found Davis Dyslexia techniques were detrimental to the learning of reading, I had no reply. I even received an email that evening from someone advocating for the Structured Literacy approach (and with a vested interest in it) that was very much in the same vein. My reply to both was that I am happy to promote their practice as much as I am any other.
Now to be clear, as The Ark Education NZ (TAENZ) co-creator and director, I am keen to “on-board” as many different practitioners as possible. The more diversity there is, the more opportunity there is for everyone to have their particular needs met. It matters not how many studies are conducted when a certain approach does not work for any particular individual. As a classroom teacher, I found that a fixed approach was never as effective as finding and using a variety of approaches that worked for groups or individuals. This could be a little difficult in the System, because of the constant lobbying for a specific approach, or a “cure-all”. All too often, I have seen the baby thrown out with the bathwater. This is where home educating becomes so advantageous, because you can build a bespoke program that works for your child - no need to worry about “the science”; if it works, who cares?
All this got me thinking about how this System has polarized everyone to the extent that they will go to “war” to defend an approach or view. “The science is settled”, “the science is very clear” and other categorical statements are bandied about with impunity, it would seem. Never has this been so keenly demonstrated as in the past three years. When “the science” is reified to the extent that it cannot be questioned, we have a problem. Ironically, the very nature of science is curiosity, inquiry and the testing of concepts.The best science presumes nothing and creates more questions in its pursuit to expand knowledge. As far as I understand, “the science” can never be settled. Also, it is not very difficult to prove a premise, if that is the entire focus of a study, and just because your premise might be “right”, does not make every other one “wrong”. This is especially true of human studies due to the enormous amount of possibilities and variables that influence our human experience. So when all other paradigms are not only marginalized, but vilified, my suspicions are aroused. I have never been one to follow the crowd without question (probably no surprises there…), and this has been a definite disadvantage when operating in a controlled institution as is formal education.
The irony does not end with the settling of science…it also seems ironic to me that educators and academics would categorically shut down any ideas or views, because, aren’t we supposed to be opening minds to new possibilities and encouraging questioning and curiosity? As a teacher I like to present a few views and allow discussion and debate, encouraging learners to challenge their schemata and come up with their own choices. This may trigger a few of us, especially those of us who are so institutionalized that we feel threatened by other views other than our own or the one’s of the ruling narrative. It has occurred to me that many of us have vested interests in the paradigms we hold and this creates an environment of competition and polarity, which is not in any learner’s interest.
Our best scientists, inventors and thinkers have all been considered “different” or even insane in their time. The narrow-mindedness of systemic compliance would not allow for challenge, or independent thinking or creativity, for that matter. Balance is the natural state of the universe; for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. It would seem to me a wise option to remain in balance and to consider that there are as many views that can coexist as there are viewers. As educators let’s use what works for each learner and be open to all possibilities - after all isn’t that what education and science is all about?
