This paper examines the political dimensions underlying educational theories and research programs, with a focus on alternative arguments offered by prominent educationists and researchers. Drawing on a debate between neurologist Dr. Strauss and researcher J.E. Stone regarding the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's reading research program, the paper explores how experimental approaches, public funding, and policy decisions may serve political ends rather than purely educational ones. The discussion also considers Margaret Quigley's analysis of the Eugenics movement as a further example of politically motivated research framed as scientific progress. Together, these arguments challenge mainstream assumptions about educational reform.
While broad consensus exists on the importance of education for both personal development and national welfare, many scholars champion various influential educational theories and movements. However, a notable number of researchers and educationists have offered alternative arguments, contending that educational research — and the public funding that supports it — is used not only to instill discipline and responsibility but also to serve political ends. The following discussion presents arguments from several educationists and researchers, quoting the examples they cite in support of their positions.
Within the educational research community, large numbers of researchers and educationists are interconnected, typically forming groups with those who share similar viewpoints on a given theory or movement. This dynamic gives rise to extended chains of argument and counterargument, illuminating the degree to which educational policy debates are shaped by competing ideological commitments as much as by empirical findings.
A prominent example of such a chain of arguments emerged when Dr. Strauss questioned the validity and adequacy of the reading research program drafted by Reid Lyon of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). This prompted a series of alternative arguments from J.E. Stone, which Strauss in turn countered, refuting Stone's claims and examples.
Dr. Strauss considered Lyon's reading research program inadequate for the general population. According to Strauss, the program abandons "social and psychological components of reading" (Stone: 31–32). Moreover, he argued that without the eradication of socioeconomic disparities existing in the United States, the rate of illiteracy cannot be diminished — a dimension that the NICHD schema lacks entirely. In his view, active experimentation involving artificial methods of gauging and designing educational programs does little to improve the contemporary educational landscape.
Stone countered Strauss's position, advocating for the Institute's experimental approach and presenting the view that even if experiments and numerous studies are impractical in certain respects, paperwork alone is insufficient for achieving desired goals. Stone thereby asserted that for a significant positive change in educational policy, "rigorous experimentation" is strongly needed (Stone: 31–32).
Dr. Strauss refuted this call for urgent experimentation. He clarified both his position and his reasoning by drawing on examples from anthropological explorations (Strauss: 32–33), where an experimental approach is not only irrelevant but constitutes a waste of public funding. Linking this to educational reading — an activity in which experimentation is flawed compared with descriptive research and practice — Strauss shed light on the faulty "alphabetic principle" that forms the basis of the NICHD research program, arguing that it neglects the critically important functioning of symbols (Strauss: 32–33).
Stone strongly disagreed with Strauss on the point that naturally available, optimal conditions are the best means for enhancing reading and learning skills in children (Stone: 31–32). Instead, Stone supported Lyon's use of synthetic approaches to sound instructional design and reading proficiency, emphasizing the potential advantages linked to artificial methods of experimentation and learning rather than dwelling on the risk factors that Strauss and his colleagues highlighted (Stone: 31–32).
In response, Strauss made a sustained and reasoned attempt to demonstrate that comparing vaccinations and antibiotics with artificial teaching methods and experimentation is entirely defective and irrelevant. He did so by defining the distinct functions of vaccines and chemical agents in improving bodily mechanisms. Where these interventions neither replace nor oppose the natural functioning of bodily systems, Strauss argued that the use of "intense phonics" (Strauss: 32–33) does precisely the opposite — it works against and supplants the natural cognitive mechanisms that provide a foundation for young learners, causing them to "reject more efficient cognitive resources, such as syntax, semantics, and background world knowledge." The result, in his view, is children who can read aloud proficiently but possess minimal comprehension skills (Strauss: 32–33).
What Stone characterized as a strong allegation on the part of Lyon and his team is Strauss's claim that their efforts are fundamentally political, with the ultimate motive behind rigorous experimentation being the accomplishment of an international competitive edge (Stone: 31–32). Opposing this argument, Stone cited examples of successful researchers who are rewarded materially for their painstaking efforts and significant findings in the field of education (Stone: 31–32).
Strauss, in counterattack, presented vehement opposition to the NICHD's educational research programs. He maintained that the Institute has made minimal effort to conduct safer studies that exclude high-stakes and accountability testing in schools, arguing that it is utilizing public funds not for the well-being and safety of children but to pursue institutional ends — specifically by encouraging teaching staff to produce a "technologically literate workforce" rather than an intellectually literate one, thereby displaying a commitment to its shareholders rather than to students (Strauss: 32–33). The broader implications of such an agenda for education reform are significant, as they suggest that accountability frameworks can be co-opted to serve economic and political interests.
"NICHD accused of serving political rather than educational goals"
"Quigley links eugenics to elite social control"
Strauss, S.L. "Methodology, Medical Metaphors and Mental Health: A Reply to J.E. Stone." Volume 30, October 2001, pp. 32–33. Available at (accessed October 20, 2002).
Quigley, M. "The Roots of the I.Q. Debate: Eugenics & Social Control." Public Eye Magazine, vol. IX, no. 1, 1995. Available at http://www.publiceye.org (accessed October 20, 2002).
You’re 77% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.