50 Books that every Secretary of State for Education should read

[Takver]

Inspired my Michael Gove and the other threads . . .

I'd start the list off with the Harpole Report by JL Carr :)

Animal Farm springs to mind...

The Academic Achievement Challenge: what really works in the classroom?. Chall. Guilford Press. New York.

All Must Have Prizes. Melanie Phillips. Pub. Warner. A 'must read' for anyone interested in education, especially the chapter on literacy 'The War of the Words'.

Myths and Misconceptions about Teaching: What Really Happens in Classrooms Vicki Snider. Pub. Rowman and Littlefield. (USA)
Review: d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2006/09/book-review-myth-and-misconceptions.html

Inside the Secret Garden: The Progressive Decay of Liberal Education. Tom Burkard. Pub. UPB.

When Children Don't Learn:understanding the biology and psychology of learning disabilities. Diane McGuinness. Pub. Basic Books.

Why children can't read. Diane McGuinness. Penguin.

The Schools We Need: and why we don't have them. E D Hirsch Jr. Anchor Books.(USA)

Why Don't Students Like School? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Willingham. Pub. Jossey Bass.

Bad Science. Ben Goldacre. Pub. Fourth Estate. Comprehensive coverage of the bad science behind Dore, Brain Gym, fish oil therapy (all claim to help with dyslexia) and more, plus how to read research reports and statistics to avoid being conned.

Intelligence and How to Get It: why schools and cultures count. R.E. Nisbett. Pub. Norton.

That looks like a great list - actually, I think I'd like to read quite a few of them myself . . .

The Homework Myth - Why Our Children Get Too Much of a Bad Thing

I second 'bad science' - worth reading every week.

I can't stand the bad science column. All it refutes is the study - it does not refute the conclusion.

it's easy to say 'this study on fish oils did not prove that fish oils helped' - but that is not the same as saying that fish oils don't help. All you can conclude is that the study wasn't good.

So why is he being as sensationalist as the studies he is trying to disprove?

I think that refuting the study is the point though, surely. His key message, I would have said, is that too often it is not possible to tell whether x intervention helped or not, because the study that claims to measure it is badly designed.

That aside, I think I would add A S Neill's book about Summerhill to my 50 books for the Secretary of State to read.

To kill a mocking bird,
1984,
The handmaid's tale

I think from a parents point of view you don't really care if the study is flawed Takver if you see that X has benefited your child.
Now fish oil did nothing for my son but hundreds of parents claim it helps theirs so who am I to say don't try it? My son claims Brain Gym helps him concentrate so should I say stop doing it? It's Bad Science!

IndigoBell, that's sort of the whole point of the column!!!

surely, he is trying to highlight how science is used to justify conclusions made. He is not saying the conclusions are wrong in themselves but that the evidence used is flawed and to prove those conclusions right, more rigorous reasearch data would be needed.

science is so often misquoted and abused its shocking. Thalidomide is the ulitmate example of what can go wrong if the research is not good enough

mrz, you are right but it is amazing the strength of the placebo effect. In order to establish what exactly is going on, you have to do enough detailed reasearch, double blind test etc.

That doesn't mean parents should stop if they feel its working or that a link won't be found.

But given the nocebo effect is as strong as the placebo effect I would have thought they cancelled each other out. (the nocebo effect is the opposite of the placebo effect. Genuine proven medicine does not help people if they really believe it won't. )

Fish oils, brain gym and dore method clearly do work for some people. Not because of any placebo effect. They genuinely work. And all that things like bad science do is stop people who might be helped trying them. Sure it also stops some people who not be helped also trying them. But in my book it's terrible to not do something that would have worked, and there's nothing wrong with trying a therapy that is safe and doesn't work.

My children with SEN have made incredible progress by doing things bad science (and others) don't approve of. And all those people did was made it harder for me to invest the time and money into treatments which have been life changing.

Of course it's very hard to prove somethings work. Big deal. But making hard decisions even harder is truly mean. There are so many genuinely life changing therapies out there that people aren't getting. It's very sad.

but so many people use the bad science blog/column/books to dismiss ideas that for whatever reason do help some children. When your child is struggling you are willing to try anything to make their lives easier and being ridiculed doesn't make help.
Some simple solutions don't have any scientific evidence to support them simply because financially it isn't worth the effort to do the research when their is no profit in it.

Mrz - exactly. Doing studies is incredibly expensive. And for programs like the dore method which take 2 years to complete virtually impossible.

One of the truly saddest cases of this is the buteyko method which cures asthma. But almost no one will make any money out of the buteyko method and the drug companies will lose an awful lot of money if Drs stopped prescribing ventalin etc.

So the drug companies just bury and refute all studies showing the buteyko method works, and a lot of peoples lives continue to be decimated by Asthma. And the NHS continues to ruin peoples lives by siding with the drug companies.

I'm not disputing what you say but please give some consideration as to what bad science did for thalidamide victims, those who have suffered with measles, enforced sterilisation of 'sub-normals'.....

it is so important to get reasearch like this right, and ensure the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented are sound, otherwise the consequences can be dire.

You cannot dismiss the whole of rigorous scienctific reasearch just because it hasn't prooved what you want it to yet.

Its the poor reasearch that is ridiculed not the general public. You are still misunderstanding the point of the articles.

I'm not misunderstanding the point of the articles I'm merely stating that those who quote the articles to ridicule those parents who see fish oils or brain gym genuinely helping their child need to think before they speak.

If that's what you feel, then fair enough. That is a shame though, as i think that has got in the way of what the article is attempting to achieve

MigratingCocounuts - but the converse is also true. Please also give some consideration to those who are needlessly suffering from Asthma, ASD, ADHD, Dyspraxia, Dyslexia.....

On both sides terrible mistakes have been, and are being, made.

I very strongly agree with mrz, that these articles are more often used to ridicule parents and make them feel bad, then to try and improve scientific research.

Even on the SN board which is normally so supportive 'bad science' is quoted every so often. When it really, really shouldn't be.

I respect you both hugely but I am feelling that we have reached the end of this little debate and will have to leave disagreeing. Thank you for your points of view though.

I don't believe I have ever personally ridiculed anyone for trying something they believe will help nor have I said anything on this thread about disagreeing with that part of your posts.

However, I will always support scientific rigor before a claim can be taken as proven and that for me is the key. I loathe it when the 'its scientifically proven' claim is used falsely, especially if it is for marketing purposes.