Why the Reading and Math Wars Keep Coming Back

Education has seen it all before. A promising approach to teaching catches on, and then it becomes the center of a heated debate. That’s happening with the science of reading, and increasingly, now the science of math. But Harvard Professor Jon Star says these debates get at a bigger question in education: What counts as good research, and how should it guide decisions about teaching and learning?

“Anyone with a megaphone or a social media platform or a lot of money can advocate for a particular way to teach. And they can claim that their way of teaching is supported by research evidence…,” Star says. “The debate is less about whether one method of teaching is better than another method of teaching. But it's really a debate about the type of research that supports each of those methods.” 

And it’s something that education hasn’t been able to get away from throughout its history. It’s why if you look back far enough, Star says, you can see some of the same debates we are having now about math as we did in the 1800s, including debates over discovery-based learning and explicit instruction. In math education, he says, what may appear to be one central argument is actually a collection of overlapping disagreements. This is also partly why Star thinks its valuable for educators to understand the history of education, and the debates that go along with it. It’s also the focus of his course, “Controversy in the Classroom: Debates on the Learning and Teaching of Math, Reading, and Science,” currently offered for both HGSE and Harvard College students. “I don't want to use the oft repeated those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it kind of idea, but it does seem like there's a bit of that,” he says. “We need to know the ways this played out in the past in order to better understand and participate in the debate in the present.”

Ultimately, Star says that we need to be able to focus on what’s best for the students, even though there’s no single instructional approach that meets every student’s need. Research can offer important guidance about what approaches work better under particular conditions. But the challenge is balancing the evidence with an individual student’s needs and the realities of classroom teaching, he says.

In this episode, Star shifts the focus from solely defending one side of an education debate, instead advises how educators, researchers, and policymakers need to remain open to different approaches, ask better questions about the evidence, and work together to understand what helps children learn.

Transcript

JILL ANDERSON: I'm Jill Anderson. This is the Harvard EdCast.

Education has a long history of embracing promising approaches, only to see them become hotly contested. First, the science of reading. Now, the science of math.

Jon Star says beneath these debates is a bigger question. What counts as evidence? Star is a Harvard educational psychologist, math teacher, and someone passionate about the history of education. He teaches a course at Harvard exploring why debates like these and the reading and math wars that came before them keep resurfacing. He examines how we might move beyond polarized arguments over research and focus on what best supports students.

I began by asking why we keep hearing about the science of education today.

JON STAR: The phrase science of math is popping up all over the place these days, and we've been hearing about the science of reading for a long time now. I feel like these phrases, the science of blank, are signaling devices in that they're shorthand ways that people are trying to communicate two different ideas about US education policy.

Someone who says, the science of blank, is saying that when we make policy decisions and recommendations about what to teach and how to teach in subject areas like reading and math and science, these policy decisions should be based on research.

That phrase, science of blank, it suggests that sometime in the past, policymakers may have made decisions that weren't based on research evidence. In other words, that they weren't following the science or the data. But instead, they followed their hunches or untested theories or fads or conventional wisdom. And so when we say science of blank, people are communicating this idea that policymakers, when they make decisions about what to do in education, they should rely on scientific evidence. And that scientific evidence should guide recommendations to teachers and schools.

So at first glance, that wish seems perfectly reasonable. But there have been periods in the history of the US education when we actually haven't done this well. Sometimes these policymakers' ears are drawn to whomever speaks the loudest or whomever has the most compelling narrative or whomever has the most money or influence. And this leads to policy decision making that isn't based on research evidence. So coming to some agreement on what makes research good has been really tough and contentious, now and in the past.

And so how does this relate to the science of? Well, when people use the science of blank, they're, in essence, putting forth a particular vision of what they think makes research good.

So, let's just say, for simplicity, that there's 10 features of a research study that make it a good research study and one that we should believe and trust. And that if a study includes all 10 of those features, that's the kind of research that should inform policy decisions. But if the study doesn't include those features, it isn't good research, and it shouldn't be used to decide what teachers should teach.

So, when we say the science of, we're not only signaling that decisions should be guided by research, but we're also taking a stance on what features or qualities of research we think makes it good research. 

In the academic world, we have peer review. We have journals that we know publish great research. We have courses that teach our students about how to tell the difference between good research and flawed research.

But in other corners of academia and in the non-academic world as a whole, this level of agreement about what counts as good research is not there. So anyone with a megaphone or a social media platform or a lot of money can advocate for a particular way to teach. And they can claim that their way of teaching is supported by research evidence. And they can even pull out some papers that they say, here's the research that shows that this approach works. If someone criticizes their approach and says, for example, that their evidence is based on flawed research, they're going to disagree. They're going to say, it is not. It is based on great research, and here's the research.

So the debate is less about whether one method of teaching is better than another method of teaching. But it's really a debate about the type of research that supports each of those methods.

And so when we accuse someone of being an opponent of the science of, what we're saying is that that person is using a different definition for high-quality research than we think they should be using.

JILL ANDERSON: I wanted to talk about the course you teach at Harvard on the math wars, reading wars, and debates over science education. Why do you think it's important for educators to understand the history behind some of these conflicts?

JON STAR: I believe there's a perception that the debates that we're having in the present about how to teach math, how to teach reading, are new. But the reality is we've been having these debates for quite a long time now. And I think it's helpful, maybe even essential, that policymakers understand the history of these debates.

I'll give you a couple of concrete examples. In the first weeks of my course, when we're learning about the teaching of reading, and later on, in math, we look at these debates at four different time periods. We look in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, in the mid 1900s, and then in the last, let's say, 30 years. And there's really interesting ways that these debates over these four time periods are both remarkably similar, but also with very important differences.

Sometimes it feels like the debates get resolved, but surprisingly, it comes back in the next iteration. I don't want to use the oft repeated those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it kind of idea, but it does seem like there's a bit of that. We need to know the ways this played out in the past in order to better understand and participate in the debate in the present.

JILL ANDERSON: Considering that math is your subject expertise, what is the central disagreement happening right now in math?

JON STAR: Well, interestingly, in math, even though it appears that we may be having this debate about a single issue, it's actually a sort of mixture of many often unrelated arguments that get mushed together into something that starts to sound like a single argument.

And so for example, some people would say that the thing that we're arguing about right now, that the central axis, if you will, of the math battles, the math wars, is whether it's best for students to be explicitly taught, directly taught, or whether students should be expected to discover things and figure things out for themselves. So certainly, that is something that we are debating about right now. But I would argue that what really is being debated here in math is whether the research evidence supports either or both of these approaches.

So for example, many people who would say they are advocates of the science of math would claim that the most valid, rigorous, good research supports explicit instruction. And they would claim that the discovery approach is not supported by as much good or valid or rigorous research. Whereas the other side might either argue that both approaches are supported by good research. And maybe they are arguing that it isn't an either/or. Or they might be arguing that the discovery approach is the only one that's supported by good research.

I guess the other thing that I'll say about this, relevant to the work that I do in my course, is that this particular issue has a really long history in US math education that I think people don't really know about. This isn't the first time we've talked about this.

In fact, there was a very influential math textbook that came out in the US in 1826. And when this book came out, there was a lot written about it. And many advocates raved about it. And the praise they were offering of this book sounded a lot like the current debate. There were claims that this book promoted discovery and meaning making and reasoning. And so this conversation was already being debated then. 

And then another anecdote is that in 1934, there was a really interesting research study that compared students' learning from two different methods of instruction for teaching math. And if you read the paper, you'll see that those two different methods that were extensively discussed and known in 1934 sound remarkably similar to the things that we're debating right now.

JILL ANDERSON: I know you said it earlier, about being doomed to repeat the past, but it certainly feels that way! Just hearing about something from the 1800s and the early 1900s. Conversations we're still having!

JON STAR: There's a level at which that could be a little depressing because yeah, you think, well, haven't we figured this out again?

JILL ANDERSON: It feels like we want a blanket answer for how to do something. But perhaps there is not a one-size-fits-all way to teach math or teach reading.

JON STAR: That's right. This is a tough one. I feel like this comes up a lot in my classes, and this certainly is something I think about in my other life as an eighth grade teacher.

On the one hand, we know that all kids are different and that kids learn differently and that our jobs as teachers is to modify our instruction and to think about what works best for an individual kid. And that there isn't going to be a blanket approach that works for everyone.

So on the one hand, we recognize the individuality of kids' instructional needs.

But on the other hand, and this is where my researcher hat, maybe, comes in a little more, I feel like we should have something to say to teachers about which methods are generally better and which methods are generally not better for certain sets of conditions.

It's not just whatever you think is best. It's not completely relative. There is some guidance that research tells us about what is a little better than something else.

So as a teacher, I need to know, ultimately, that there are multiple approaches and that I should be familiar with those approaches and think about what to use that works best for which kid. But I should also know some general principles.

Like in such and such's situation, maybe it's a little better to do approach A, And in another situation, maybe it's a little better to do approach B. It's not just whatever. There should be some guidelines. So that's the in-between space that we're going on.

I don't believe this is completely relativistic, where it just depends completely on the kid and you find the thing that works for the kid. But at the same time, I don't believe there's a one size fits all. It's both of those at the same time.

JILL ANDERSON: Can you talk a little bit about research moving from the scholar and maybe what goes on when it gets into the media, when it gets into policy, and how things, maybe, get lost along the way?

JON STAR: Amongst teachers and policymakers who lead very busy lives, one could ask, well, do they really have the time or the interest or even the knowledge to be able to dive into the research base that underlies a particular recommendation such that they can say, oh, that research is not rigorous or believable, but this research is?

But I do think there needs to be some of that. That's part of being able to evaluate the trustworthiness of our sources, which we do in all other aspects of our life, technological and interpersonal. And there's a part of that, as well, when we're thinking about the research base.

I do feel that academics have an important place in this conversation. And I'm biased, as an academic, that they should stay involved in these decision-making processes as well. Academics are trained to know a lot about research and are really experienced at navigating this terrain between better and less good research.

So I think academics have a lot to learn from policymakers that will inform their research to make it more relevant and applicable to actual real-life conditions in schools.

And the opposite is true as well. I think policymakers have a lot to learn from academics, who do bring this deeper knowledge about research and how to tell the difference between research that might be particularly useful or applicable and research that might be less rigorous or solid or that might be things that we should raise questions about.

And it is hard to draw a line between those two and personal beliefs and experiences. And huge academic disagreements happen in this space as well. This is hard. But I do think that's the hard space we need to enter if we're going to navigate the space of what research-based means.

JILL ANDERSON: I want to just shift a little bit to teachers because I think about a teacher. And they've been doing something one way for a while, feeling like maybe this is the right approach. They feel like they followed the research, and then the research, maybe, shifts, and then they need to shift their practice. You're someone who teaches. And so I'm wondering how do we respect that evidence but not invalidate that experience of a classroom teacher?

JON STAR: The teachers that I know and work with and have known and worked with, I feel that they actually have a real sophisticated understanding of the balance that I was speaking about a moment ago. This balance between the need to think about individual kids and what individual kids need and recognizing that different approaches are going to work differently for individual kids. And, at the same time, understanding that there should be some general goals and principles that guide our instructional decision making.

If we're talking about a particular debate in education, and I'm mostly thinking about math, but I think this is true generally, I'm more likely to encounter an academic who has extreme views on one side or the other than I am to encounter a teacher. The teachers I talk to, I feel like many teachers get it. They understand that both of these approaches are useful and things I need to know how to do. And the trick is to figure out when to use each approach and how to use each approach so that it works to its potential.

So teachers understand this nuance and put it into place. And I want to think that many teachers are aware of these heated debates that are pushing them to one side or the other but know that they do and always need to exist kind of in the middle there.

I would worry if that weren't the case. I would worry if a teacher is sort of pulled all the way to one side when the debate goes that way, and then they get pulled all the way to the other side if the debate goes back that way. I just don't think that's the best thing for the students in their classrooms.

But I continue to be impressed with the way the teachers that I work with do have a really rich and nuanced understanding of these sets of debates in terms of how the different methods are actually applied and the way that they can be integrated to best serve the needs of all students.

JILL ANDERSON: One final question is how do we not get absorbed into these wars, into these debates, that have been happening for centuries?

JON STAR: It's something that I wonder about, whether academics are actually trying to avoid being in these debates. Because some might argue that it's not a bad thing, if you're an academic, to be in these debates. It becomes your mission. It gives you a research agenda. It gives you a platform. You can make a name for yourself.

There's some academics who get into this and really feel that that's critical for them to be the one that stands up for an approach and really shows that it is solid and research based. So some academics relish the opportunity to get in those debates, and I understand that.

But for those who aren't interested in getting caught up in these debates, then I guess I'm thinking that keeping sight of the big picture is always a good idea. That we have kids in mind. That this is for the good of the kids. And that should be driving us in all of our decisions and all of our arguments. That the bottom line, what is best for the kids?

And if we can agree on that, maybe that gets us someplace. But recognize that what we're really disagreeing about is what counts as good research. And maybe we can have that argument, but still know that we're trying to figure out what's best for the kids. And then we can, maybe, collaborate and design a study together that is figuring out what's the best thing for the kids. Although in the past, that hasn't worked out so well. Those are really hard studies to do.

But I think that's what I think about. It's really centering and prioritizing the actual kids. That's one of the reasons that I went back into the classroom to teach, is I wanted to be in that world again and see the real impact of the things I was thinking about and doing and researching on the kids that were in my classroom and putting it into practice.

JILL ANDERSON: Jon Star is a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a middle school math teacher. He's the author of Diving Deeper with Upper Elementary Math: Low-Prep, High-Reward Challenging Math Enrichment Activities. I'm Jill Anderson. This is the Harvard EdCast, produced by the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Thanks for listening.