Risking experts

Based on a current Tasmania initiative to improve student literacy rates it seems that experts generally propose a four part strategy::

1. Assess the performance of the subjects (in this case, students)
2. Respond by developing and applying resources (usually based on programs with which the expert has been deemed successful)
3. Provide training for staff (in order to ensure compliance)
4. Prove that the strategy works by running pilot studies (the easy part)
   

But as Myron Tribus says, "There is a simple answer to every question, and it is usually wrong". For example, such proposals generally involve serious 'misinformation', especially for the clients. Common misinformation includes

• The expert's recommendations are innovative and somehow 'visionary' (rare in education)
  
• The recommended practices are not currently in use (they usually are to a greater ot lesser extent)
  
• The strategy will solve the problem (education is a complex endeavour and does not have simple solutions)
  
• If it fails the blame should go to those who failed to implement the strategy properly (however, managers are responsible for the effectiveness of the system).

When staff accept this misinformation as valid, there are likely to be serious OH&S issues around stress and and mental health.

Perhaps as a result of the 'feel-good' vibes of the strategy, those charged with stewardship of the system generally fail to give careful consideration to the possible dangers involved, including

• grossly misrepresenting the current practices
• repeating previous practices in the hope of achieving different outcomes
• alienating those responsible for achieving the intended outcomes
• damaging the credibility of those responsible for achieving the intended outcomes
• making it harder for parties (in this case, schools, families and communities) to work together
• grossly over estimating the transferability of 'best practices'

Most pilot studies are usually quite successful, not so much because they demonstrate the veracity of a strategy but because of the Hawthorne effect.

The intentions may be right, the 'experts' may make their very best contributions. However, such strategies are fundamentally flawed if they are not based on a sound understanding of the current reality, the history of the local situation, and initiatives that nurture the emergence of more effective and sustainable local actions and arrangements.