Summaries

Summaries of readings as linked to the CCT 693 wiki (3 items)

1. Woodhead, M. (1988). "When psychology informs public policy." American Psychologist 43(6): 443-454. Summary posted on http://cct.wikispaces.com/693Woodhead This article provides analysis of how social science, in particular early childhood education research, is translated to and utilized in policy. The article, published in 1991, raises a concern still prevalent in education research. What happens when policymakers and advocates use outcomes from research studies to push their own agenda? The author traces the history of Head Start, a federal program born out of the Great Society reforms that addressed poverty and racial inequalities. Head Start was created to provide early child development and health programs to low income families. Numerous evaluations have studied the effectiveness of this federally funded early intervention program over the years; a meta-analysis of 1,500 studies (Hubbell, 1983) including longitudinal comparison studies have measured the cognitive, health, and social development of children in Head Start programs, and “real life” variables over time, such as employment and juvenile delinquency.

Because these studies are not comparable in population or in rigor (of research design), it is difficult to conclude a causal link between the intervention and student outcomes. As policymakers have hailed the success of Head Start based on positive findings from these longitudinal studies, which are indeed scientifically based, federal funding has increased and sustained Head Start programs for more than 50 years. For example, the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies report showed in a comparison study in 1980, socially disadvantaged children who participated in Head Start programs had higher high school completion rates. Another study, Weikart’s Perry Preschool Project (Clement et al, 1984), showed positive effect of preschool on their levels of employment, juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy. The authors of the Consortium projects note that children who participate in preschool have a good start in the school system, with stronger school competence, retention, and fewer referrals to special education as compared to control groups; these “transmission pathways” might have transformed short-term effects of the intervention into long-term outcomes.

The authors point out that ot’s important that preschool programs and the benefits they offer to disadvantaged children are not viewed as a magic bullet for improving achievement and social inequities in our society. In his analysis of these studies, Woodhead raises several concerns on the generalizability and validity of findings from the two seminal projects (Weikart’s and Consortium studies) that served as impetus for policy; their findings were promoted in the media and to the public as justification for public funds. While the studies show Head Start works, and it does make a difference in narrowing achievement gaps and social inequities, Woodhead notes that one cannot look at these studies in isolation. The growing acceptance in research is that of a situated learning or sociocultural or “ecological” framework, which takes into account the effect of the environment and social contexts that contribute to learning and social development. From this perspective, there are mediating variables – family, home, school, culture, and the child’s own self-concept – that actively interact with or mediate the short and long-term effects of the preschool intervention. Furthermore, the transmission pathways noted above will vary from culture to culture or school to school. Models that consider the complexity of these indirect variables, as opposed to a “direct effects model”, are called a transactional model. Translated to policy, this “cultural relativistic model” is not as powerful and absolute as a direct effects model, thus changing -- and challenging -- how one interprets social science research. Woodhead suggests that in social science, it is important to compare contextual conditions of studies, including the time in which it took place (in this case, the 1960s), and to replicate studies in order to generalize the potential for an intervention.

As policymakers use research such as Head Start evaluation research to inform social policy, it is critical they recognize the contextual variables that play a role in the success of early intervention programs. What are the community and social variables that interact with Head Start? How do these variables contribute to or detract from the long-term “real life” variables? As the author indicates, there could be other influences that are worthy of focus and funding for intervention, in addition to or instead of Head Start, that lead to healthy development of children in low SES communities. The point of this article is not to diminish the value of experimental social science research; it is a reminder that there is no simple cause-effect for early childhood intervention. Researchers and policymakers should consider the contextual factors and processes and not rely solely on the manipulated variable in experimental studies. Such multilevel analysis will help scientists identify the settings, contexts, and social variables that contribute to a broader goal of helping all children have access to healthy start in life.

2. Metcalf, S. (2002). "Reading between the lines." __The Nation”__ (Jan. 28): 18-22. link: http://cct.wikispaces.com/693Metcalf In this article the writer looks at the political context in which the NCLB was created. Bush marshaled in an accountability era that expanded federal powers and control in public education, and engaged business CEOs and textbook publishers in education policy through such groups as the Business Roundtable. The exact influence of business on NCLB policy formation is unclear, but the author makes clear the connection between Bush and McGraw Hill CEO McGraw families. Despite the influence of publishers and their lobbyists, the author notes the mentality was that of a bottom-line: our schools are failing, we’re losing to global competitors, and we need a business bottom-line approach to bring equity and improvement to a failing system. In a push to standardize the education system, testing was seen as the sole strategy to raise student achievement. With the passing of NCLB in 2001, public education, an institution of our democratic society, became a more regulatory system of accountability, with state standards and high-stakes testing requiring AYPs and state takeovers of underperforming schools. This translated to a booming business for publishers of state tests such as ETS. In another example of federal expansion in public education in the Bush era, the author notes the National Reading Panel (NRP), a literacy experts assembled by Congress in the 1990s, amid the Reading Wars, reviewed 100,000 studies to conclude the best reading instruction is phonemic awareness. Soon federally-funded--and mandated--classroom instruction and curriculum materials focused on phonics. Critics of the this approach questioned the validity of NRP's findings, noting a discrepancy between the Panel's report and the summary that was made public and the savvy work of a public relations firm who represented McGraw-Hill. They also questioned the NRP's translation of 'seminal' literacy education research studies to policy, an issue I summarized in "When psychology informs public policy." When policy is linked to business, whose interests are at stake? And how can rigorous education research be utilized and influential in policy decisions in an unbiased, objective, and nonpartisan manner? Will the 'big boys' with lobbyists and power continue to effect the public agenda? [This is why one reason why I left career in public relations.]

With the re-authorization of NCLB coming up, I hope the federal funding and outside mandates trickles down to effect what happens inside the classroom, and helps to uncover and scale-up evidence-based strategies to narrow achievement gaps and improve the quality of education for all students.

3. Hitchcock, G. and D. Hughes (1995). __Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School-based Research__. Chapter 3: Access, ethics, and school-based research http://cct.wikispaces.com/693Hitchcock The chapter begins by looking at access issues in teacher research and what concerns need to be addressed before a research study commences, in the research design phase. Given the hierarchy and politics in school structures, the researcher will need to gain permission from the school site administrator early on. And by nature of action research, the work is likely to be conducted a context in which the teacher-researcher currently practices, causing potential areas of conflict that should be addressed explicitly, such as the goal and purpose of the research, confidentiality of the research subjects, and how the data will be collected and used. These concerns are particularly salient when a sponsor or researcher is involved, when outside pressures (e.g., management), or gatekeepers might create tensions and prevent the researcher from working independently, which would lead to more open outcomes. Skeggs (1992) illustrates the social dimension of access by example of how a decision-maker's moral beliefs about sexuality and gender were operationalized and enforced when supported by the power of an institution.

Qualitative research gives rise to ethical issues. It is impossible for the teacher-researcher to hold a "value free" perspective when engaged in thick descriptions of the values, ideas, beliefs, and practices of the subjects. Hitchcock and Hughes make the point that ethical and methodological issues are linked in qualitative research, especially in teacher research where the teacher is likely part of the situation being studied. An important part of qualitative research is effective field relations - trust, confidence, and relations between the subject and the researcher. The teacher has a dual role as researcher and informant at the same time; it's hard to be a 'non-participant observer' and 'participant observer' in your own classroom/practice. Covert roles are possible, but an open approach is recommended.

In the aims of the researcher to protect the anonymity and privacy of research subjects, and to maintain value-free judgements, professional associations have developed ethical rules and standards for school-based research, such as the British Sociological Association. On the other hand, Feminist researchers do include value judgements in their work, as they are concerned with a feminist ethic in qualitative research and seek to use research as tool for women's empowerment. (See Chisholm, 1990 for feminist critique of action research.)

The last section of this chapter raises the issue of objectivity in social science given the observer-researcher's beliefs, values, history, and sociocultural context. Positivism is a view that theories or claims can only be verified by true facts. Objectivity is the goal and criteria for good research. "This is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake" however its power can be limited as demonstrated in Project Camelot in the early 60s when the intentions of the sponsor (in this case the US army) run counter to that of the researcher. Max Weber argues that values cannot be derived facts because "'ultimate evaluations' were so important, they were not to be reduced to purely factual judgement.'" In other words, Weber upheld the researcher and his/her ability to give meaning to facts. This view of 'absolute freedom of the researcher to pursue one's activities as fit' was called the enlightenment model. Critics thought this position was nieve to the inherent social and political power in the society. Alternatively, the phenomenological and interpretive position values the subjective experience, and is dedicated to documenting "how individuals and groups of individuals define and perceive their worlds". The positivists' preference for surveys and structured interviews are limiting in the type of information collected and might be more prone to bias in the design. Gouldner (1968) encourages researchers to reject the notion of moral neutrality or "ombudsman sociology", and be honest and forthright on their values, assumptions, and frame of reference in the research.

Soltis (1989) offers examples of ethical problems that arise in four areas of qualitative research: Soltis argues the central ethical question is how you know, and establish either.
 * ethnographic: emphasis on face-to-face interaction pose privacy challenges for the researcher
 * evalutaton: contract obligations, measures of effectiveness may introduce bias (knowing what is right, good, effective), and how the findings are used
 * intervention: the right to intervene or change
 * critical/critique: knowing what is wrong, bad, ineffective