I spent a few days with students at Amherst College last week discussing education policy. In general those students were very impressive and had excellent questions and insights to offer. One smart student raised an issue that I’ve heard numerous times and would like to address here: Can one really make claims about education policy without having some experience as a teacher or administrator?
The argument goes something like this — Teaching is a complicated and challenging task with many nuances. People who make proposals for education without having experienced those complications and challenges of teaching run a serious risk of missing important nuances. Without the benefit of direct experience their proposals may well fail or backfire. So, we need to be sure to consult educators when making policy proposals.
This argument amounts to giving educators intellectual veto power over policy proposals. But arguing “you just don’t understand the issues because you haven’t been a teacher” isn’t very compelling.
First, direct experience has limited usefulness for policy-making. Policies apply to broad populations, but experience is necessarily limited to particular places, times, and circumstances. You almost certainly cannot generalize from particular experiences to general policies.
Second, direct experience is almost universal. Just about everyone has spent a large portion of their life in schools and/or sending children through schools. The problem isn’t that people are unfamiliar with schools. The problem is that everyone is so familiar with schools that they wrongly think they know everything about them from their direct experiences, even though those experiences have necessarily been limited by time, place, and circumstance.
Third, our direct experience creates interests that may well distort our policy views. People who work for schools obviously have interests as employees that may be distinct from the interests of children, parents, or taxpayers. But parents also have direct experiences that can distort their interests. For example, if they have a child in GT, they may push for more emphasis on gifted and talented programs.
The antidote to these distortions of direct experience is consideration of systematic data. We may never be able to fully check the biases that result from our direct experiences, but systematic data extends our knowledge beyond the limited and distorted information derived from those experiences. And systematic knowledge can be shared among people of different experiences so that they can reference a common set of information to consider desirable policies. To know things about education policy we should put the focus on systematic data and try to de-emphasize our experiences.
To help the student consider the limitations of experience, I asked her if we should let soldiers have an effective veto over military policy. Why do we normally have a civilian secretary of defense? Why have 4 of the last 5 presidents lacked any serious military experience and nevertheless been viewed as legitimate commanders-in-chief? I know some people think we ought to defer to military personnel on military policy, but I think that view is as mistaken as deferring to educators on education policy.
And should we defer to doctors in the making of health policy? How about deferring to construction workers in the making of transportation policy? Or how about deferring to bankers in the development of financial regulations? The people who do something aren’t necessarily the people who know what should be done. Doing isn’t the same as knowing.
Posted by Jay P. Greene 







