Bill 23, if passed, would amend the Education Act and enact the National Institute for Educational Excellence (INEE) Act.
Public hearings on this bill are currently taking place and I have been invited to speak. I only spoke about the creation of the INEE, which is hotly debated — as I have already said, the innate is not acquired…
I am in favor of the creation of this institute and I put forward three reasons to justify my position. I also think that dangers lie in wait. I see seven of them, and I hope recognizing them will help avoid them.
Why this institute should exist
To begin with, INEE will help to correct the sad misunderstanding of credible scientific data and theories in education, which is unfortunately all too widespread. Many reasons (ideological, epistemological, corporatist, in particular) explain this sad and surprising situation. I am not going into the subject here, on which I have already written quite a bit. But we must quickly make the necessary corrections.
Then, the INEE will help to fight against the presence in theory and the adoption in practice of falsehoods, of pedagogical legends, which is also, alas, too widespread in education. This time again the thing is well documented.
Finally, the INEE will produce or insist on the production and dissemination of descriptive data on education, which data, and the news constantly reminds us, is too often lacking, and in some cases cruelly so.
But to achieve these goals well, INEE must avoid falling into the pitfalls that the pursuit of these will place before it. Identifying them is therefore necessary, and it allows us to suggest ways to avoid them.
Without claiming to be exhaustive, here are seven that I consider particularly important. The credibility of the Institute will largely depend on its ability to avoid them.
Pitfalls to avoid
The first is submission, even if only apparent, to politics. It is absolutely necessary to ensure the independence of INEE, to give it full freedom of speech and to accept that it will sometimes speak out against policies adopted by ministries, and not only in education. The example of the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec (INSPQ) could provide some avenues for action in this regard.
The second is the attack on the professional autonomy of teachers. This exists, must be preserved and is even a condition for the successful application of the proven methods that we want to propose. Here we need to have a clear idea of what this professional autonomy consists of, of what it allows (making choices, adapting, being the expert in the classroom) and what it does not allow. To take an example elsewhere than in education, and which will, I think, be unanimous, a doctor could not invoke his professional autonomy to recommend to a patient who suffers from hypertension to consume a lot of salt…
The third pitfall would be to forget or neglect its educational mission. Because if the INEE must disseminate knowledge, research results, it must also teach how to read them, to assess their scope, to recognize and correctly assess the various types of research that are practiced.
The fourth would be precisely not to bring the nuances which are essential in front of research results, to give an impression of scientistic dogmatism. It must be recognized that not all research and methods are created equal, that various factors can corrupt research (predatory journals, commercialization, ideology, etc.) and that some conclusions are more conclusive than others.
The fifth trap would be that the INEE does not apply to itself the medicine that it advocates for others. If he makes recommendations, we must know whether they are followed. If not, then why? And if so, what are the effects?
The sixth trap would be not to take into account the question of finalities and all that ensues. These purposes, and this is crucial, are not reducible to factual data, are not resolved by themselves and are often the subject of debate. Think for example of equal opportunities in education and the concept of education itself.
Finally, the seventh pitfall would be forgetting the philosophy of education and the need to produce conceptual analyses. Again, these questions are not resolved by the sole invocation of factual data and are often debated. Think of the idea of secularism, or of the very definition of certain objects of empirical research such as teaching, learning, knowledge…
Among other things, to avoid these pitfalls, it will be necessary to be very careful in the composition of the INEE. On this subject, in the course of a remark that was made, I had the opportunity to say that I have no intention of being part of it.
Doctor of philosophy, doctor of education and columnist, Normand Baillargeon has written, directed or translated and edited more than seventy works.