By Milly Fullick and Naomii Seah
With curriculum changes in the spotlight, there is a renewed focus on the concept of evidence-based education.
But what does this mean, and does following the evidence really give Aotearoa students the best chance of success? School News investigates the positives and shortcomings of the ‘evidence-based’ label.
Read the latest print edition of School News online HERE.
There are many positives to considering the evidence, Milly Fullick writes.
The case for evidence-based practice
To begin, it’s worth defining the term ‘evidence-based practice’. Used in fields including medicine, aviation, social work and of course education, evidence-based practice simply means using the most up-to-date information available to inform how professionals work.
This may just sound like common sense, but it’s a newer development than we might think. Although research in general is a much older field, the concept of evidence-based practice originated in medicine, with the term only coined in 1991.
Evidence in education can be a more complex area than healthcare, as there are social, economic, geographical and other factors that affect how students learn far beyond the literacy programme or maths resources they are using.
Additionally, children’s high levels of neuroplasticity—the ability to form connections and absorb new information—means that provided with just about any kind of stimulus, they’re likely to learn and make progress. This can make it challenging to prove that any one approach is more effective than another. High quality research, though, takes these factors into account to draw a fair and balanced conclusion.
Not all evidence is equal
However, it’s important to note that ‘evidence-based’ is a broad term with no standard definition or protection. The evidence which any given product, policy or intervention is based on can vary widely in quality; it pays to know what kind of evidence has been found to determine how effective something is.
Research can be categorised using the Hierarchy of Evidence, which ranks different types of studies by their quality and rigour. At the bottom, as the least rigorous form of evidence, is expert opinion and general background information. Then come smaller-scale studies using selected groups. In education, this might be a study involving a small number of classes, or a year group at one or two schools.
Higher up the chain is research which has been reviewed and appraised by independent experts, then at the top are systematic reviews. Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard in research; they look at large bodies of trials and studies from multiple sources and use them to draw conclusions about what works best.
Although a controversial change for some, Structured Literacy (SL) is an example of a policy informed by strong evidence, including systematic reviews. The SL strategy, implemented in slightly different forms across the world, is backed by decades of practice in English-speaking countries and a substantial body of evidence suggesting its effectiveness. New Zealand’s previous method for teaching reading, based on the Balanced Literacy system, is not supported by a strong body of research or evidence of outcomes.
One analysis of 68 Balanced Literacy and Structured Literacy studies, for example, found that 20 years of evidence consistently backed SL as the substantially more effective approach.
The case for teachers
Using evidence-based teaching as the sole basis for practice has its drawbacks – more on those later – but as a starting point for teachers, it can provide a solid foundation to build on.
Most teachers would argue against the idea of every classroom in the country learning the same topics in the same way. Professional intuition, experience and expertise are teachers’ hard-won badges of honour, and can separate excellent teachers from good ones.
However, those excellent teachers are also likely to believe that every student in every classroom across the motu, and indeed the world, deserves a consistent, quality education that prepares them for life beyond school. Evidence-based practice can help signpost educators to strategies that can ensure their short time with each cohort of students has the best chance of being impactful.
Additionally, as teachers’ time is increasingly stretched, knowing which strategies and interventions have high chances of success can help to best utilise precious planning time by not having to reinvent the wheel.
In summary
It’s true that there are limitations on the evidence-based education approach; aside from those mentioned above, it’s crucial to note that research has often omitted indigenous and marginalised voices. Clearly, more needs to be done to ensure any approaches taken in research and education uplift our Māori and Pacific Island ākonga.
There’s an argument to be made, though, that many of the shortcomings of evidence-based education can be improved by collecting more, quality evidence.
Overall, evidence-based practice can, and should, form an important tool in educators’ kete. While there’s no substitute for knowing students, contexts and communities, evidence can help elevate learning and help learners to be their best.
However, evidence-based education is not without its critics, writes Naomii Seah.
Seeking quality assurance
Termed the evidence-based movement (EBM) in some academic literature, a push toward “high-quality” education and social research began at the turn of the last century in the OECD. In the New Zealand context, the EBM coincided with the advent of nationally developed professional learning and development, contrasting the fragmented approach in the decade prior following the introduction of Tomorrow’s Schools.
As Pat Bullen and other New Zealand education and social work academics note in their 2019 paper, at its core, the EBM model is intended to ensure quality investment of limited resources; that is, ensuring that public funds are spent on education initiatives that will have the intended impact.
In the post-pandemic context, as rises in the cost of living and a stalled economy create fiscal pressures, the government has framed education reforms as a way to boost economic growth.
When announcing the overhaul of our national secondary qualification last year, Erica Stanford, Minister of Education called education “the great equaliser… If we want a strong, productive economy with high wages and standards of living, we educate our kids.”
Read more education news on School News HERE
As reforms became mandatory at the beginning of 2025, Stanford again emphasised the link between education and the economy, saying: “a world-leading education system is a key driver to economic growth.”
Importantly, the connection between education and the economy is framed with the rhetoric of efficacy, or “value for money” in the context of a tight fiscal environment. This leads directly to a mandate for evidence to support the education practices and initiatives which will supposedly create the biggest difference for student achievement. In turn, this has led to system-wide reforms focused on mandating practices like explicit teaching, based on research findings which demonstrate a positive effect on student performance.
Lost in translation
Though on its face centring evidence in education is a sound strategy for improving the sector as a public good, the relationship between research findings, teaching practice, and student outcomes is not necessarily a straightforward one.
In his 2005 paper, British sociologist Martyn Hammersley notes two critical underlying assumptions in the evidence-based education paradigm. The first is that good practice is based on research findings, and the second is that an evidence-based practice will always lead to better outcomes. He refutes the first assumption—that teaching practice must be informed by research findings—with five key arguments:
- Research cannot provide all the answers for practitioners, who must use their own wisdom, judgement and other sources of information in their practice.
- Research cannot meet practitioners’ exact needs at the time they arise.
- Research is largely concerned with “technical” considerations whereas practitioners must account for other contextual factors.
- Research information may be too detailed or complex for straightforward practical implementation.
- Research findings cannot standalone as practice guides, they must be interpreted and evaluated, which could lead to differing practical conclusions.
As for the assumption that evidence-based practice always leads to better outcomes, Hammersley says:
- Research findings, especially in social fields like education, are fallible, which means implementing research findings will not always have the desired effect and may cause unexpected outcomes.
- A factual basis does not necessarily guarantee success, in some cases practice or policy based on false ideas can be more effective for the target result(s).
- The impact(s) of a practice are always contingent on factors outside practitioners’ control.
- Definitions of desirable outcomes and their priority are highly contested.
The nuances outlined by Hammersley complicate the “common sense” rhetoric often used when discussing evidence-informed practice and policy in education. Yet, the above issues are rarely raised in the public domain in favour of crafting a compelling and straightforward narrative about education—perceived failures of the system can be corrected if we only find the right teaching strategy.
Hammersley’s last point refers to what has become a central criticism of evidence-based practice; that it has narrowed the definition of “effective” teaching and learning to performing well in standardised tests, and obscures the broader philosophical debate about the purpose of education.
Evidence in practice
Another pitfall critics note is that a focus on “evidence-based practice” discourages innovation or deviation from a prescriptive model.
In a 2021 article in the Journal of Education Policy, academics Jessica Holloway and Maria Hedegaard examine the cultural consequences of evidence-based practice in Australia and Denmark. They found that teachers felt compelled to follow evidence-based practices despite expressing doubts about their contextual appropriateness. This raises questions about how much education can be tailored to the individual needs of students under an evidence-based approach.
Yet, most educators and researchers would agree that evidence does have a role to play in teaching and learning. Often, that role is more complex, changing and varied than is usually presented in the rhetoric of evidence-based practice.
Modern practice guides often use the language of “evidence-informed” practice rather than “evidence-based”. This is to denote a more nuanced relationship between evidence and practice, where a wide range of evidence is applied in a cycle or spiral of improving teaching and learning. Rather than an exclusive and narrow focus on research findings and quantifiable evidence, “evidence-informed” practices encourage including observational and contextual evidence to inform teaching and learning approaches.
No single conclusion
That educators and academics alike have strong opinions on evidence-based practice is perhaps not surprising; one of the great unifiers of teaching is a desire for the best possible outcomes for the young people of Aotearoa.
Like any strategy or theory, it is not a flawless approach, but use of evidence-based strategies could be an important part of lifting students’ attainment.
