The MISA initiative that is currently employing me owes its life to the recently-adopted penchant at the Ministry of Education in Ontario for Evidence Informed Decision Making (EIDM). The Ministry has taken the view that it is advisable to follow practices supported by evidence of a benefit. Now this might seem pretty basic, but that is, unfortunately, far from the case. It runs along the same track as the old saw about common sense—that it is far from common! Several 'for instances' rear their heads. And if the examples are going to be worthwhile, they must strike an unhealthy reaction in at least some segment of the audience, so forgive me for that!
Let me first examine the case of child care in Canada. There was plenty of hay made in the recent election campaign over the value of each party's child care policy, or lack thereof. Yesterday, we had a research finding that in Quebec, where government supported child care is at the highest level in the country, and has the longest running track record, there is a significant increase in aggressiveness and anti-social behaviour among children. They note that there are higher levels of depression among mothers whose children are in child care. The researchers further cite data that show there is a higher percentage of families where both spouses are working outside the home in Quebec, due, we expect, to the extensive child care program. Thus, they conclude, as we consider the adoption of a national child care program, we should tread carefully. It seems there is a societal price to pay! Well, the reporter could not finish the story before there were retorts and consternation from the supporters of child care programming. The research program was flawed, the findings unsupported, and the need for national child care is clear. This is a battle of advocacy versus evidence. The supporters of child care are advocating for it as a need (possibly a right) for families in Canada. The researchers are saying that the data raises concerns. How we shall proceed is of considerable interest and importance.
For a second case, and just to include our southern neighbours more effectively in the debate, let me mention the Iraq War. George W. Bush and his friends, some years ago now, produced the case for war. They convinced the American legislators, and those in at least one other country, that there was a need for war. Subsequent events have shown that this was largely a matter of advocacy, not evidence. The proof of that pudding comes from the lips of President Bush himself (and I paraphrase), "Even though the data we were using has proved to be wrong, I would not change a single thing in what I have done." That's advocacy! When we make our decisions based on evidence, the action must necessarily change when we change the evidence. Yesterday, we found his defense secretary Rumsfield acknowledging that the terror threat is increasing and may, in fact, be at the highest level ever. That's evidence, and it is evidence that advocacy has led them down a very bad garden path indeed. How they shall proceed is also of considerable interest and importance.
Let me first examine the case of child care in Canada. There was plenty of hay made in the recent election campaign over the value of each party's child care policy, or lack thereof. Yesterday, we had a research finding that in Quebec, where government supported child care is at the highest level in the country, and has the longest running track record, there is a significant increase in aggressiveness and anti-social behaviour among children. They note that there are higher levels of depression among mothers whose children are in child care. The researchers further cite data that show there is a higher percentage of families where both spouses are working outside the home in Quebec, due, we expect, to the extensive child care program. Thus, they conclude, as we consider the adoption of a national child care program, we should tread carefully. It seems there is a societal price to pay! Well, the reporter could not finish the story before there were retorts and consternation from the supporters of child care programming. The research program was flawed, the findings unsupported, and the need for national child care is clear. This is a battle of advocacy versus evidence. The supporters of child care are advocating for it as a need (possibly a right) for families in Canada. The researchers are saying that the data raises concerns. How we shall proceed is of considerable interest and importance.
For a second case, and just to include our southern neighbours more effectively in the debate, let me mention the Iraq War. George W. Bush and his friends, some years ago now, produced the case for war. They convinced the American legislators, and those in at least one other country, that there was a need for war. Subsequent events have shown that this was largely a matter of advocacy, not evidence. The proof of that pudding comes from the lips of President Bush himself (and I paraphrase), "Even though the data we were using has proved to be wrong, I would not change a single thing in what I have done." That's advocacy! When we make our decisions based on evidence, the action must necessarily change when we change the evidence. Yesterday, we found his defense secretary Rumsfield acknowledging that the terror threat is increasing and may, in fact, be at the highest level ever. That's evidence, and it is evidence that advocacy has led them down a very bad garden path indeed. How they shall proceed is also of considerable interest and importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment