Educators and curriculum writers have been researching the best methods of teaching kids, weighing the merits of structures ranging from Common Core to the science of learning.
Common Core was designed as a set of national education standards that students should meet at each grade level, granting the federal government more control over curriculum in all 46 states that adopted it in some way.
The science of learning is a compilation of data and research on the way people learn, used to form practical curriculums and methods of teaching.
According to the University of Virginia, some examples of proven methods include the retrieval practice (having students repetitively recall information every day), dual coding (combining words and visuals), and spacing apart studying.
While Common Core has proven to be ineffective, in the best case not demonstrating any positive change and in the worst case causing a decline in student performance, the science of learning has shown promise time and time again.
Despite the evidence, one Australian professor has spoken out against the science of learning, calling it “heavy-handed” “dogma,” according to EducationHQ. Dr. Rachael Jefferson, a lecturer at Charles Sturt University, says that seeing the science of learning spread across social media is “soul crushing” for her.
Interestingly, she laments that the science of learning is a problem because it suggests “‘whatever [teachers have] been doing for the last few decades is unimportant now.’”
Let’s be clear, the science of learning, nor its advocates, would call our educators or their efforts unimportant. However, there is something to be said for the consistently low proficiency rates among students in both Australia and the U.S.—maybe certain methods of education are not working.
To combat poor proficiency, it makes sense that the solution would be to hone in on the way our children learn and build curricula and teaching methods around that. It never was (or never should have been) increased federal oversight or social-emotional learning.
Dr. Jefferson’s worry is that the science of learning squanders teachers’ creativity in the classroom. This somewhat merited concern, however, is easily accounted for. Teachers following a set of proven methods does not hinder them any more than the lines from Macbeth hinder an actor performing them, according to elementary educator James Dobson.
When teachers follow a curriculum that works, they best serve their students while retaining the freedom to add whatever flare and artistry they like. Besides, if this were the case, it would have been used to debunk the federal reach of common core long ago.
The science of learning is no more than a series of proven teaching methods. Educators who want to improve student achievement should look to those for the best ways and the right things to teach, and they can still do all this while being themselves.
In that spirit, both North and South Carolina have made great strides in implementing proven methods of instruction, like the science of reading.
In 2021, North Carolina passed Senate Bill 387, which, among other things, mandated instruction based around the science of reading. This bill passed after a task force found that high-quality reading instruction was grounded in the science of reading.
In 2024, South Carolina amended the Read to Succeed Act, outlining “that in-service professional development based in the science of reading, structured literacy, and foundational literacy skills must be provided for teachers, school principals, and other administrative staff.”