69ý

Opinion
Policy & Politics Opinion

‘Conversation Over. Case Closed': Groupthink Is Hobbling Education Scholarship

Research isn’t giving educators what they want, but a reset is possible
By Rick Hess — January 09, 2025 6 min read
A group of researchers encircled by data.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print
Email Copy URL

In my experience, what K–12 educators want from research is stuff that’s useful. They want strategies rooted in evidence and frank appraisals of whether instructional practices actually do what they say. They want researchers who kick the tires and fair-mindedly report on the strengths and weaknesses of pedagogies, practices, and policies.

That’s not what educators are getting. On a range of sensitive questions—from restorative justice to social-emotional learning to culturally responsive education to gender identity to affirmative action—the education research community has, in recent years, operated as if its role is to help advance a morally correct set of nostrums.

This matters mightily for teachers and school leaders. They adopt recommended strategies, experience disappointing results, and are left to wonder what they did wrong. Meanwhile, the scholars who’ve authoritatively promoted these policies and practices blame “implementation problems” rather than the inadequate vetting conducted by an insular community of researchers.

The good news? It needn’t be this way. The education research community can choose to set things right. I’ve been noodling on all this while compiling the 15th annual Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings published in EdWeek, an exercise designed to identify the scholars who’ve had an outsized impact on policy and practice. That inevitably raises questions about the kind of impact they’re having.

Take the debate that’s raged in recent years over “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” “anti-racist” education, and critical race theory. This was an extraordinary opportunity for universities to foster competing lines of inquiry, promote discussion across ideological divides, and elevate discourse over dogma.

Instead, the education research community picked a side. In 2020, the American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education issued a , directing researchers to “stand against the notion that systemic racism does not exist.” Conversation over. Case closed. And these organizations were hardly alone. A host of college presidents issued , as did the of academic associations. My inbox was dotted with missives from scholars (many of whom identify as progressive) who feared the professional consequences of disagreeing with any of this.

In the research community, the proponents of DEI, critical race theory, and “anti-racist” education were presumed correct; critics were labeled “deniers” and “bigots.” This made it tough to ask all sorts of important questions: To what degree does “equitable” discipline mean prioritizing racial proportionality over acceptable conduct? Is it educationally sound to teach students to view the world through a lens of oppression, privilege, and intersectionality? Does it really make sense to describe the United States in the 21st century as a systemically racist nation? If the United States is racist, how persuasive is the case for the “remedies” pushed by proponents of DEI and “anti-racism”? Dogma vanquished discourse.

One result: college campuses that are suffused in fear. A recent of more than 6,000 faculty members across 55 colleges and universities, conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, found that 87 percent of faculty said there were topics about which it was hard to have open, honest conversations on campus. The most-cited topics? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, racial inequality, transgender rights, and affirmative action.

K–12 leaders stumble into accidental 'culture wars' when they adopt practices that they’ve been told were evidence-based and effective, only to find out ... that their confidence might have been misplaced.

And it’s not just right-leaning thought that’s getting stymied. The Republican response to campus groupthink has featured a surge of legislation intended to rein in campus dogmas. This has had repercussions of its own. Thus, while half of conservative faculty members report that they’re hesitant to voice their opinions, so do 1 in 5 liberal faculty. Over a third of faculty say they self-censor their written work: That’s nearly four times the number of social scientists who said the same thing in 1954—at the height of McCarthyism.

Yikes! Colleges and universities are exactly where these kinds of fraught questions should be constructively considered. And they’re where education researchers should be providing models and tools to K-12 educators.

Instead, hot-button education debates have played out with academe on one side—and a slew of parents, activists, and conservative thinkers on the other. In disputes over race, gender, or immigration, for instance, associations, institutions, journals, and influential education scholars have almost uniformly fallen into lockstep, fostering the notion that academics are partisans and sending a clear signal to individual researchers who might disagree.

This has practical consequences.

Ideas aren’t fully pressure-tested. Studies are conducted and reviewed by sympathetic scholars, and used by like-minded thinkers to justify proposals, leading to curricula, training, or grading practices that strike many teachers and parents as suspect.

See Also

Image shows a multi-tailed arrow hitting the bullseye of a target.
DigitalVision Vectors/Getty
Policy & Politics Opinion Is Education Research Too Political?
Rick Hess, April 10, 2024
7 min read

“Traditional” views on discipline, instruction, or civic education are mostly located outside the academy in think tanks and advocacy groups. This limits the back-and-forth between competing perspectives.

One result is that K–12 leaders stumble into accidental “culture wars” when they adopt practices that they’ve been told were evidence-based and effective, only to find out (when confronted with irate parents or frustrated teachers) that their confidence might have been misplaced.

For instance, there’s much in SEL that is commonsensical and grounded in research. Yet the “research-based” SEL label has also been affixed to polarizing strategies (think race-based affinity groups or rules banning school staff from informing parents of a student’s gender identity) for which there is no meaningful evidence.

Fortunately, there’s an opportunity to do better. Many colleges, including and the , are committing themselves to policies of “,” emphasizing that, while it’s fine for individual scholars to express views, scholarly institutions themselves commit to cultivating robust dialogue rather than embracing the “right” answers. Higher education is gradually that stymie free inquiry, while university leaders are the need to promote more open discourse.

Education researchers should lean into this shift. Those charged with recruiting scholars or doctoral students should seek candidates who approach problems from different perspectives. Research associations should stop taking stances and instead commit to fostering robust exchanges regarding evidence, principles, and practical implications.

Researchers should make a concerted effort to invite in those with divergent views, embedding heterodox perspectives in a research team or on a research advisory board, so as to more fully anticipate concerns and appreciate obstacles.

The editors of scholarly journals should do more to encourage rigorous scholarship that questions reigning orthodoxies and to reach out to skeptics when seeking reviewers. Conferences and campus confabs should work much more diligently to encompass diverse perspectives and to make all participants feel welcome.
Mostly, the education research community just needs to practice what it’s been preaching about the value of diversity and inclusion.

This will make research more reliable, yield policies and practices that are more useful, and perhaps even help to rebuild confidence in higher education. Talk about a win-win.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the January 15, 2025 edition of Education Week as Education Research Has a Chance for a Reset

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Special Education Webinar
Don’t Count Them Out: Dyscalculia Support from PreK-Career
Join Dr. Elliott and Dr. Wall as they empower educators to support students with dyscalculia to envision successful careers and leadership roles.
Content provided by 
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Improve School Culture and Engage 69ý: Archery’s Critical Role in Education
Changing lives one arrow at a time. Find out why administrators and principals are raving about archery in their schools.
Content provided by 
School Climate & Safety Webinar Engaging Every Student: How to Address Absenteeism and Build Belonging
Gain valuable insights and practical solutions to address absenteeism and build a more welcoming and supportive school environment.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.

Read Next

Federal Then & Now Why Can't We Leave No Child Left Behind ... Behind?
The law and its contours are stuck in our collective memory. What does that say about how we understand K-12 policy?
6 min read
Collage image of former President G.W. Bush signing NCLB bill.
Liz Yap/Education Week and Canva
Federal What's in Trump's New Executive Orders on Indoctrination and School Choice
The White House has no authority over curriculum, and no ability to unilaterally pull back federal dollars, but Trump is toeing the line.
9 min read
President Donald Trump signs a document in the Oval Office at the White House, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump signs a document in the Oval Office at the White House, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2025, in Washington.
Evan Vucci/AP
Federal Trump Threatens School Funding Cuts in Effort to End 'Radical Indoctrination'
An executive order from the president marks an effort from the White House to influence what schools teach.
6 min read
President Donald Trump, right, arrives in a classroom at St. Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, Fla., on March 3, 2017.
President Donald Trump visits a classroom at St. Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, Fla., on March 3, 2017. Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 29, 2025, that aims to end what he calls "radical indoctrination" in the nation's schools.
Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel via AP
School Choice & Charters Trump's Order Kicks Off His Efforts to Expand Private School Choice
Trump is directing several federal agencies to look into expanding school choice offerings—a push that continues from his first term.
3 min read
President Donald Trump talks as he signs an executive order giving federal recognition to the Limbee Tribe of North Carolina, in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump talks as he signs an executive order giving federal recognition to the Limbee Tribe of North Carolina, in the Oval Office of the White House, Jan. 23, 2025. Trump on Jan. 29 signed an executive order that would mandate a federal push for school vouchers.
Ben Curtis/AP