The education ministers must base their policies on sound research

Politicians' speeches are peppered with references to research and evidence-based policy. Less often discussed are the details of who commissioned and paid for the research and whether findings have been subjected to peer-review. Such issues are often deemed not crucial to politicians' debates. Yet, as Ben Goldacre's Bad science columns so frequently illustrate, failure to address these matters can lead to poor public policymaking. It is timely, therefore, that a report, Instinct or Reason: How Education Policy is Made and How we Might Make it Better, has been produced by the CfBT (Centre for British Teachers) Education Trust. It concludes that, since the 1970s, much education policy has been influenced less by the strength of evidence, than by political ideology, prime ministerial likes and dislikes and the views of political advisers. Based on interviews with, and the memoirs of, former ministers and meetings with civil servants, thinktank policy wonks, academics, and trade union officials, the report explores both the overt and covert reasons for many of the initiatives and frequent changes of policy in education over the last 40 years. The authors argue that the media, ideology, particularly the belief in the efficacy of the market, and an increasing awareness of international comparison data – have a disproportionate influence on decisions. They suggest this influence has been considerably more powerful than that of academic researchers, who have often been viewed with suspicion. They make the point that, the longer they have been in power, the more governments feel able to disregard evidence. The researchers' suggestions for how to remedy this situation include the creation of a body based on healthcare's Nice (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). This body would commission and help to interpret educational research, feeding non-political findings to ministers and civil servants. They propose the appointment of a chief education officer with a similar role to the chief scientific and the chief medical officers. And, in order to generate more useful policy research, they recommend the earmarking of a share of research monies and the establishment of an annual prize for well-evidenced work. I found this report extremely interesting. Its analysis of 40 years of governments' policymaking makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of how research and policy fit together. I hope it will be taken to heart by the new education ministers and their advisers. Good policymaking needs a sound research base. My six years as director of research and statistics for the Inner London Education Authority convinced me of the need for researchers to anticipate future needs, predict trends and produce results in time for politicians to use them. I do, however, have a few reservations about the recommendations. An educational Nice, for instance, appears similar to the 1999 National Education Research Forum, which proved disappointing and was decommissioned in 2006. It would also overlap with the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information unit (EPPI-Centre). Moreover, there is a danger that such a body might seek to impose an orthodox view of research. And, as countless scientific discoveries have shown, researchers must not be corralled if they are to produce revolutionary thinking. Finally, I am not convinced that the report sufficiently recognises that research findings frequently challenge the expectations of policymakers. This discord, awkward though it may be, is essential in a democracy. The 1950s Quaker adage applies aptly to educational research when it states the need "to speak truth to power". The study, by Adrian Perry, Christian Amadeo, Mick Fletcher and Elizabeth Walker, will be published by the CfBT Education Trust on 7 June