Opposing Overhyped Fads Is Not the Same as Being Politically Conservative
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder argues that criticizing unproven educational trends shouldn't be confused with political conservatism — it's about evidence and common sense.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence-based skepticism isn't political - Questioning fads like eliminating consequences or adopting unproven tech is about what works, not ideology
- We respect research and proven practices - The opposition is to abandoning what works in favor of what sounds progressive
- Don't let labels shut down debate - Calling critics 'conservative' is a tactic to avoid engaging with their arguments
Transcript
we love fads in education and often we can't even get rid of fads after we have learned that they don't work i saw a great example today from a school in new zealand that was built with an open concept floor plan in 2017 not the 1970s 2017 this 500 student school just one giant room and of course it didn't work out right it was just a disaster it was noisy it was the temperature didn't you know, stay stable.
Like there are all these problems that were entirely predictable to anyone who heard about open concept schools the first time they were tried in the 70s.
And it's funny to me that we keep being open to stuff like this and falling for innovative sounding new ideas.
when we know from experience how they went the first time.
So I think we're always going to have to deal with this faddishness in education.
But I also think we have to think about the way we look at tradition.
One of my Twitter friends said recently that respect for tradition or kind of educational traditionalism, respect for traditional practices, is often misinterpreted as social or political conservatism, which is something completely different.
I think one of the reasons we have so much respect for tradition in this profession, maybe to a fault, is that we tend to develop traditions around things that don't have any good alternatives, right?
Like one reason that virtually all schools until recently used suspension as a form of discipline is because there's not really an alternative to the consequence of suspension for certain misbehaviors, right?
Like if someone is physically unsafe, if they're going to punch people, you just can't be around them.
Like there's not a lesson you can teach or an intervention you can do that can make someone who's physically unsafe be physically safe.
And of course, there are things like drugs and weapons and all that that we have to worry about too.
So we come to these solutions, we come to these common approaches across vast differences of geography and philosophy and politics because those solutions are the best ones.
And in the natural world, in biology, This is known as convergent evolution.
In the organizational world, this is known as institutional isomorphism.
Institutional isomorphism, where we end up adopting the same structures, the same policies, because they're proven through time and experience to work.
And not necessarily through research.
Like, there's not research on every single thing.
But we generally figure out what works and what doesn't work.
And it's not conservative anymore.
in the usual sense we use that word, to prefer those things and to be skeptical of things that sound too good to be true, that sound too innovative, that sound like they'll have some sort of magical power.
So let me know what you think about this.
Are you seeing other examples where tradition may not be perfect, but it's a good guide to kind of steer us away from fads that may be unproven or may actually have been disproven and yet we're kind of drawn back to them because they're shiny and new?
Let me know what you think.