In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

| 49 3 A Tangled Web Reflections on the Roles of Science, Policy, and Assessment in Education Howard Gardner In no area of human endeavor are science and policy more regularly confounded than in the sphere of education. Two spheres that should be kept at arm’s length are almost routinely collapsed with one another. Today policy makers in the United States go even further—bridging three spheres! The findings of science and the pronouncements of policy are automatically linked to questions of assessment and evaluation. Almost as soon as a finding is reported or a policy is proposed, pressures mount for an objective measurement of it. A climate results in which the overly broad claim and the quick fix are the rule—and in which careful planning and continual reflection , over a long period of time, are lamentably rare. Render unto Caesar While reflective individuals have always tried to explain happenings in the world, science as we know it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Only since the time of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton have researchers put forth testable claims about the workings of the universe; carried out experiments and observations to test these claims; revised their claims in terms of the findings ; and described both models and results in a way that other scientists can replicate or refute. While no sphere of human life is free of considerations of value, science stands out in its attempts to be objective. At least in the ideal, the scientist lays out his expectations and methods as scrupulously as possible , reports his data reliably, carries out replications in order to strengthen his findings, and stands ready to admit error and to alter models in light of the work carried out by himself or by other scientists. In sharp contrast, the world of policy propounds what should be the case and marshals tools that can help to achieve that desired goal. From the time 50 | Howard Gardner that communities first existed, leaders have promulgated goals and sought to realize them through policy/political means. In a complex modern society, of course, most policies are contested; many people—elected, appointed, or self-appointed—promote their favored policies in the marketplace of ideas and practices. The realm of education is inextricably bound with human values. There is no such thing as an education that is objectively the best—judgments of quality are inherently bound to one’s stated goals. And these goals are almost always up for negotiation. In the United States, I have quipped, one can never devise a system that would equally please the three Jesses: civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, ardent right-wing politician Jesse Helms, and wrestler-turnedgovernor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota. Nonetheless, the temptations to elide the realms of science and policy are overwhelming. Like Odysseus, who was powerfully attracted to the song of the sirens, educational policy makers are seduced by the aura of scientific legitimacy. Consider the confirmation, a half century ago, that the right and left hemispheres of the brain carry out different cognitive functions, with the left hemisphere being dedicated primarily to linguistic and logical processing and the right hemisphere having dominance for spatial and emotional processing. Though it is not clear what they might have expected to be the case, individuals all over found this a fascinating finding. And before long, educators and even businesspeople were speaking about the importance of utilizing right-hemisphere capacities. Entire industries sprung up in the name of right-brain education, left-brain education, whole-brain education, brain gymnastics, and the like. Step back for a minute, however, and the superficiality, even foolishness , of succumbing to the song of sirens becomes apparent. If one believes that spatial or emotional or artistic or nonrational thinking is important , then one should promote that way of thinking. If, on the other hand, one does not value that way of thinking, then the fact that it is housed in one or another hemisphere is irrelevant. Would anyone have a legitimate reason to recommend a different policy just because of the manner in which processing happens to occur, or to not occur, in the brain? Another example: in 1994, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve, a book that was to become famous (or, some would say, infamous ). In this book, the authors argue that psychometric intelligence is very difficult to change. They go on to suggest that, in view of this finding, it might be well to counsel less intelligent individuals to pursue less...

Share