Conviction vs. evidence: What’s driving math education’s worst policies with Thomas Briggs and David Shuck (Ep 71)

In this episode, Anna Stokke continues the conversation from the previous episode on what happens when requests for evidence are dismissed with the phrase “research shows.” She is joined by Thomas Briggs and David Shuck from the Center for Educational Progress to explore why ineffective or unsupported practices persist in education.

Thomas and David introduce an important distinction between misunderstanding and conviction: sometimes educators genuinely believe they are following best practices, while other times evidence is ignored or dismissed due to ideology.  They discuss examples including flawed advanced math placement decisions, an update on the New York math briefs controversy, concerns around programs like YouCubed, and the impact of San Francisco’s math de-tracking experiment.

The conversation examines how “research shows” can be used both in good faith and as a way to shut down debate, while offering listeners practical ways to think critically about evidence and education policy.

This episode is available in video at www.youtube.com/@chalktalk-stokke

Anna Stokke was recently a guest writer for the Center for Educational Progress.  That article is available at https://www.educationprogress.org/p/what-to-do-when-research-shows-shuts

TIMESTAMPS

[00:00:22] Introduction

[00:03:16] What is the Center for Educational Progress?

[00:05:10] Two reasons ineffective educational practices persist

[00:07:57] Examples of misunderstandings

[00:09:11] Students being denied access to advanced math

[00:16:14] Is conviction one of the biggest barriers to evidence-based education?