The Ohio Academy of Science has provided a little reality check to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's evidence-based education proposals and found them lacking--actually, way lacking. The governor has been working on his education reforms for at least a year and has gone out of his way to tout the "evidence." Now, we learn from a real, scientific organization that real, scientifically valid evidence is practically nonexistent in the plan.
Although this news from the Academy is not good for Ohioans, especially the youngest Buckeyes, it's good to know we can all stop wasting time looking. A lot of people have been searching for the governor's evidence for weeks and coming up empty handed. University of Washington education finance expert Paul T. Hill found little merit in the governor's assurances.
According to Academy Chief Executive Officer Lynn Elfner, who reviewed the bibliography of Strickland's evidence for his massive school reform plan (four Fordham reports are cited), "most references are to political action or opinion reports; only a few articles appear to be from primary, peer-reviewed, refereed journals that the Academy would consider fundamental to understanding how children learn and how we should organize learning environments and pedagogy." Elfner made that statement in a recent letter to an Ohio House subcommittee reviewing the education plan.
The Academy is very concerned with education, especially science, technology, engineering and math (or STEM) education programs. How science is taught and how people learn are vital to effective teaching, not just science teaching. Yet, only two of the 398 references in the governor's bibliography concerned STEM education. One article concerned technological design and the same article was the lone reference for science education. There were no references to engineering education. There was just a single reference each to math education and cognitive education. There's was one reference to the brain, an organ that is fairly important in learning, and none concerning neuroscience. Oddly, despite the governor and his wife being trained education psychologists, there are no references to either educational psychology or developmental psychology.
Elfner volunteered the Academy's assistance in helping provide experts to judge the governor's plan.
No word, yet, on whether House Democrats will take advantage of the scientists' public-spirited offer. Accepting would be an act of good public stewardship, although it is not the kind of scrutiny the governor is likely to find advantageous.
