When we鈥檙e not sure people will support our cause, it鈥檚 tempting to link it to something more popular. Because an idea may be controversial or lack broad support, we hitch a ride on an outcome that reflects mainstream values. It鈥檚 a strategy widely used in education, although we may have failed to notice the pattern鈥攁nd consider its risks. To wit:
- Play. The current cult of rigor has led to fewer opportunities for young children to explore, invent, and just be kids. But rather than take a stand in favor of the irreducible value of such activity, we defensively list the putative practical benefits of fooling around. Play is 鈥渃hildren鈥檚 work"; it teaches academic skills, promotes language development, offers opportunities for conflict resolution, and so on.
- Social-emotional learning. Let the headlines tell the story: 鈥淪tudy Finds Academic Payoffs in Teaching Students Social Skills鈥� (澳门跑狗论坛); 鈥淪tudy: Whole-Child Program Boosts Reading, Math Scores鈥� (ASCD SmartBrief). A Teachers College, Columbia University, report published earlier this year even tried to quantify
- Music education. Lending new meaning to the phrase 鈥渋nstrumental justification,鈥� efforts to bring music to children鈥檚 lives are often defended on the grounds of improved performance in math or a boost in general cognitive capabilities. (When was the last time you heard someone justify algebra as a way to help kids be better musicians?)
- Preschool. The economist James Heckman may be the most prominent proponent of the financial benefits of early-childhood education, but today you鈥檒l get millions of hits by Googling 鈥減reschool鈥� and 鈥渋nvestment.鈥� Forget its potential to enrich children鈥檚 lives鈥攖he reason to get behind nursery school, we鈥檙e told, is that it will enrich the treasury by reducing government spending once we see tots as 鈥渉uman capital.鈥�
- School itself. The logical conclusion of this strategy is the use of economic criteria to justify the very idea of giving children a good education. Politicians and corporate executives reflexively invoke the 鈥渃ompetitive 21st-century global economy鈥� whenever they want to make a case that schooling matters.
What I鈥檓 describing isn鈥檛 limited to our field, of course. Generosity is often promoted by citing the benefits that will redound to the giver (2013 article in the University Herald: ), while social programs to address infant mortality or homelessness are, like universal pre-K, routinely justified on economic grounds. I don鈥檛 question the good intentions of people who talk this way; they鈥檙e doing what they believe is most expedient to rally support for important initiatives.
But there are four serious problems with this strategy鈥攁ll of them uncomfortably relevant to education.
1. It devalues the very thing you support. Scores of studies have found that offering people a reward for doing something (such as reading or helping) tends to reduce their interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward. One reason for this effect, though not the only one, is that anything presented as a prerequisite for something else鈥攁 means to another end鈥攃omes to be seen as less desirable. The recipient of the reward figures, 鈥淚f they have to bribe me to do this, it must be something I wouldn鈥檛 want to do.鈥�
This applies to programs and causes, too, because the implication of emphasizing the extrinsic benefits of, say, social and emotional learning is that there鈥檚 no reason to support it other than those benefits, no intrinsic value to fostering social and emotional growth. We鈥檙e implying that English/language arts and math are the only important disciplines, or that test scores are the sole outcome we ought to care about, or that financial gain is the ultimate criterion by which to gauge the value of our activities.
This is particularly ironic in the case of play because the whole point of play is that it has no point. Play is about process, not product; it has no goal other than itself. But this same pernicious paradox also shows up with any activity we care about: It will be even harder to support something once we鈥檝e suggested that it acquires its value from something else. As the teacher and former 澳门跑狗论坛 Teacher blogger Peter Greene , 鈥淒o not defend a music program because it鈥檚 good for other things. That鈥檚 like defending kissing because it gives you stronger lip muscles for eating soup neatly. ... Defend it because it is music, and that鈥檚 all the reason it needs.鈥�
2. It鈥檚 a bargain with the devil. The consequences I鈥檝e been describing are likely to result even if X does reliably bring about Y. But if doubts should develop about the empirical connection being alleged, you鈥檙e really sunk. You鈥檝e bet the house on a horse that didn鈥檛 come in.
In fact, the researchers Peter K. Smith and Angeline Lillard have independently suggested that assertions about academic benefits derived from play may be overstated. Likewise, the case for the 鈥淢ozart effect鈥� has been greatly exaggerated: In the classic study on the topic, music proved beneficial only with respect to spatial reasoning, an effect, moreover, that didn鈥檛 last long and was demonstrated only with college students. As for education itself, a student鈥檚 school achievement is only weakly related to his or her subsequent workplace performance, and there鈥檚 little correlation between a nation鈥檚 average test scores and its economic vigor.
Every time we argue that preschool pays financial dividends down the road, we鈥檝e missed another chance to defend the value of preschool in itself.
Once such findings become widely known, the case for funding and supporting education is likely to be far weaker than if we鈥檇 never emphasized economic results in the first place. The same is true of using academic outcomes to promote play, music, or social skills.
3. It may enhance the legitimacy of whatever we鈥檙e using as the justification. I鈥檝e been arguing that 鈥渄o this in order to get that鈥� deprives us of an opportunity to build a constituency for 鈥渢his.鈥�
(Every time we argue that preschool pays financial dividends down the road, we鈥檝e missed another chance to defend the value of preschool in itself.) But we also may be bolstering the value of 鈥渢hat.鈥�
Such a result may not trouble us when the claim is that social and emotional learning or the arts raise achievement in core academic subjects; that鈥檚 not an objectionable outcome. But if the supposed benefit is framed in terms of higher scores, we鈥檙e helping to legitimate standardized tests. And as for claims that preschool, or education itself, yields economic benefits, well, do we really need to reinforce the appeal of money relative to other values in our society?
4. It may change how we pursue favored programs to increase the chance of realizing that other result. If you鈥檝e marketed preschool as ultra-early vocational prep, it鈥檚 more likely to be taught in a way that鈥檚 developmentally inappropriate. If you鈥檝e claimed that social and emotional learning can raise test scores, don鈥檛 be surprised if SEL programs start to incorporate test-prep-like instruction. And a 2012 study showed that when students are persuaded to stay in school mostly so they鈥檒l earn more money later, they become less engaged with the learning itself.
Some people already know all this, of course. There are folks with a proud history of defending art for art鈥檚 sake, supporting the 鈥渨hole child鈥� without feeling compelled to mention academic skills, understanding that young children aren鈥檛 just future grown-ups, and insisting that you can鈥檛 put a price on thinking deeply. We ought to embrace and expand these efforts rather than offer bad reasons to advance good ideas.
