Education Research & Evidence-Based Practice FAQ
How to read educational research critically and decide what's worth implementing in your school.
Evaluating Research Claims
When someone says "research says," should I believe them?
No. "Research says" is often used as a power move to shut down debate, not to genuinely inform it. Many claims attributed to research are distortions, cherry-picks, or outright fabrications. The Jo Boaler situation at Stanford showed us that even prominent researchers can misrepresent their own citations for years without being challenged. Read the actual studies yourself before accepting anyone's claims about what the research says.
Watch the video -->What's the difference between correlation and causation, and why does it matter so much in education?
Correlation means two things happen together; causation means one actually causes the other. This distinction matters enormously because bad policy gets built on confusing the two. Shoe size correlates with reading ability in elementary school -- obviously because both increase with age, not because bigger shoes help kids read. The same error drives the school-to-prison pipeline narrative: suspension correlates with later incarceration, but that's because the same behavioral patterns drive both outcomes, not because suspension causes incarceration.
Watch the video -->Why is education research so disconnected from actual classrooms?
Education research has become an exercise in impressing other academics rather than improving schools. Look at any recent AERA conference theme and you'll see language designed to signal sophistication to other professors, not to communicate with practitioners. The incentive structure rewards novel findings and citations, not practical impact. Teachers and principals need research translated into actionable guidance, not buried in journals nobody reads.
Watch the video -->How do I tell the difference between legitimate research and a fad being marketed to schools?
Skepticism is your only real defense. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Products promising dramatic results with minimal effort are selling fantasy. Look for programs that have been tested independently, not just by the people selling them. And be especially wary of programs that have been around for decades without producing solid evidence -- like brain-training programs where kids trace shapes with an eye patch on. Thirty years is enough time to know if something works.
Watch the video -->Should I be skeptical of people who claim the exact opposite of conventional wisdom?
Absolutely. When someone tells you everything you've been doing is wrong and you should do the exact opposite, that's a red flag. We've had millions of adults working with tens of millions of students for generations, figuring out what works. The good ideas have mostly been discovered. That doesn't mean we can't improve, but the bar for discovering something genuinely better than established practice is very high -- just like the bar for developing a new pharmaceutical.
Watch the video -->Neuromyths & Debunked Theories
Are learning styles real?
No. Cognitive psychologists have repeatedly shown that learning styles don't exist in the way educators believe. People do not learn better in their "preferred" learning style. What matters is matching the modality to the material -- everyone does math better on paper than verbally, and everyone understands music better by hearing it. That's a property of the subject, not the person. The myth persists because it feels true, but it wastes enormous amounts of time and resources.
Watch the video -->Is Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences valid?
No. Gardner himself has admitted there's no scientific evidence for it, even though he originally expected brain research would vindicate his theory. The reason it feels true is that people are good at different things -- but that's because they've developed different domain-specific knowledge through practice and effort, not because their brains are wired differently. The theory has been debunked, and designing lessons around supposed intelligences wastes instructional time.
Watch the video -->Does every child really learn differently?
In a fundamental sense, no. Daniel Willingham and other cognitive psychologists are clear that everybody's brain works basically the same way. That's actually great news for educators, because it means we can design learning experiences based on cognitive science that work for virtually everyone. This idea that if you have 30 kids you have to teach 30 different ways needs to die. We need to teach well, not teach differently for every student.
Watch the video -->Where does real expertise come from, if not from different types of intelligence?
Expertise comes from deep domain-specific knowledge, not from multiple intelligences or generalized critical thinking skills. An expert archaeologist, an expert chess player, and an expert tuba player are doing completely different things. There's no generalized skill we can teach that will make students good at everything. You have to actually learn each domain independently through practice, effort, and instruction.
Watch the video -->Was Vygotsky really a constructivist?
Not in the way we've been taught. His work has been misrepresented by constructivist educators in the West due to mistranslation from Russian and decades of suppression under Stalin. The Zone of Proximal Development is actually about what students can do with expert guidance from a teacher -- not about self-directed discovery. If you're basing your constructivist philosophy on Vygotsky, you should read what he actually said, not what popular summaries claim.
Watch the video -->The Science of Learning
Why don't teachers learn more about cognitive science?
Most teacher preparation programs don't teach the science of learning in any meaningful depth. Teachers get courses in child development and educational psychology, but almost nothing about memory, retrieval practice, spaced repetition, cognitive load, or how knowledge actually works. Cognitive science is all the rage in British schools but barely registers in the US. If we want teachers to teach effectively, we need to start covering these foundational topics in teacher education.
Watch the video -->Is memorization a legitimate form of learning?
Yes. Memorization is learning. It's not the only kind, but it's an essential kind. Somewhere along the way, education decided that memorization was invalid -- that if students "just memorized" something, they didn't really learn it. That's wrong. Committing facts to memory is the foundation that enables higher-order thinking. You can't analyze, synthesize, or evaluate information you don't actually know.
Watch the video -->Do timed math tests cause anxiety in students?
No. Dr. Jo Boaler of Stanford has been claiming this for years, but the research she cited does not support that conclusion. In fact, one of the original study authors told her to stop misrepresenting their work. Math anxiety is real, but it's not caused by timed tests. Fluency with basic math facts requires practice under time constraints, just like any other skill. The evidence is unambiguous: timed math activities are good for students.
Watch the video -->Does math fact fluency actually matter?
Absolutely. When students have their math facts memorized, it frees up cognitive resources for higher-level problem solving. Bloom's taxonomy is a pyramid for a reason -- knowledge is the foundation, not the least important level. Calling it "drill and kill" doesn't change the science. Practice for fluency is essential, it's not traumatizing, and skipping it does students a massive disservice, especially in later math courses.
Watch the video -->Literacy & Reading Research
Does independent reading make students better readers?
The causality actually runs the other way. Being a strong reader leads to more independent reading, not vice versa. Direct reading instruction is what builds readers. Programs like Drop Everything and Read or Sustained Silent Reading feel great to adult sensibilities, but the evidence says they're not the best use of instructional time. Approaches that don't have a great "vibe" -- like choral reading and echo reading -- actually have stronger research support.
Watch the video -->Why was balanced literacy such a disaster?
Balanced literacy was adopted based on vibes, not evidence. It came in as a philosophy that gave teachers maximum autonomy, and teachers loved it. The only problem: it doesn't work well, and lots of kids slipped through the cracks. The science of reading and phonics-based instruction have a much stronger evidence base. We made decisions based on enthusiasm rather than evidence, and it took decades for the profession to catch up.
Watch the video -->Is knowledge-building curriculum actually good for students?
Yes. Decades of cognitive science show that background knowledge is the foundation of reading comprehension and critical thinking. Some ivory-tower academics are now trying to label knowledge-building curriculum as culturally problematic, but the kids who suffer most when we stop teaching content are the ones who come in with the least background knowledge. Knowledge-building curricula close gaps. That's what makes them so powerful and so worth defending.
Watch the video -->Research on School Discipline
Is the school-to-prison pipeline real?
The school-to-prison pipeline is a persistent edu-myth based on confusing correlation with causation. Yes, students who get suspended are more likely to be incarcerated later. But suspension didn't cause that outcome -- the same behavioral patterns drive both. It's like saying ibuprofen causes future headaches because people who take more ibuprofen get more headaches. They took it because they already had headaches. Removing consequences doesn't fix the underlying behavior.
Watch the video -->Does exclusionary discipline actually work?
Define "work." If you mean it has a 0% recidivism rate, no. But about half of students who get suspended never get suspended again -- that's pretty good. More importantly, exclusionary discipline protects the learning environment for everyone else. Nobody has ever produced a study showing that keeping violent students in the classroom produces better outcomes for anyone. And the teachers filling my comments with thousands of stories about what happens when consequences are removed are telling us something we should listen to.
Watch the video -->Can we break the school-to-prison pipeline by reducing suspensions?
The evidence says no. We tried this experiment on a massive scale: reduce consequences and see if life outcomes improve. What happened instead is that behavior got worse in schools, and more extreme behavior escalated when we eliminated consequences for lower-level disruption. If you have evidence that removing suspensions actually reduces incarceration, I'd love to see it. But after years of trying, that evidence hasn't materialized.
Watch the video -->Education Fads & Innovation
Why does education keep falling for fads?
We have systemic incentives that reward leaders for pushing unproven new ideas. Getting promoted in education means being innovative, not being effective with proven practices. There's no threshold test for new educational ideas the way there is for new pharmaceuticals. We don't require evidence before implementing things at scale. Until we change those incentives, we'll keep chasing the next shiny thing while ignoring what already works.
Watch the video -->Should we disrupt the status quo in education?
No -- we should carefully surpass it. The status quo exists for reasons, and understanding those reasons is essential before replacing anything. Chesterton's Fence applies: don't tear something down until you understand what job it's doing. In advertising, they run the same proven ad for years and only replace it when something demonstrably outperforms it. Education should do the same. New approaches must clear the bar of being better than what we already have, not just newer.
Watch the video -->What happens when our enthusiasm runs ahead of the evidence?
We get entrenched in ideological positions before the evidence comes in, and then we can't learn from it when it does. This has happened with discipline reform, full inclusion, grading reform, and SEL. In each case, we scaled up a promising idea before testing it, and then the question became politically polarized. By the time we had evidence, people had already decided whether they'd accept it based on identity, not science. We've got to stop doing this.
Watch the video -->Is it politically conservative to oppose education fads?
No. Demanding evidence before adoption is professional responsibility, not ideology. Institutional isomorphism explains why schools everywhere end up with similar practices -- not because they're stuck in tradition, but because those practices are the best solutions found through generations of experience. Calling someone "conservative" for questioning an unproven innovation is a tactic to avoid engaging with their actual arguments.
Watch the video -->How do we move on when a practice we championed turns out to be ineffective?
It's hard when your professional identity is wrapped up in something that gets debunked. But the alternative is worse: defending a practice you know doesn't work because admitting you were wrong feels too painful. The way forward is to anchor your professional identity in evidence itself, not in any particular practice. I championed balanced literacy as a principal, and I was wrong. That's uncomfortable, but the students in front of us right now matter more than our egos.
Watch the video -->