Learning Communities have been, from the beginning, open to all actions that are scientifically proven to generate the greatest improvement in results and the highest social impact. They emerged in a context of wars and methodological impositions which, due to their poor outcomes, focused on justifying their failures by attacking those of us who were achieving success. They attacked the word “dreams,” claiming they would turn into nightmares; they dismissed results by saying that only processes mattered; they criticized the word “success” by labeling it neoliberal; they rejected science by saying education was not medicine; they opposed high expectations by claiming that educational levels depended solely on socioeconomic status, and so on. In that context, they engaged in methodological wars because there were no scientific criteria to assess the influence of methods on outcomes.
In such a situation, even people involved in Learning Communities sometimes insisted that interactive group activities had to follow project-based methodologies or specific reading approaches. We clarified, based on decades-old scientific evidence, that these methodological wars and impositions actually worsened results. There have been—and still are—interactive groups with excellent outcomes using a wide variety of methodologies.
High-quality research provides scientific evidence of social impact without wasting the time of schools that are working intensely to improve results. There are institutional assessments like PISA, PIRLS, and diagnostic tests that offer data on whether learning outcomes have improved. Schools also conduct internal evaluations. International value surveys and other tools include items that allow comparisons between our school, our country, and the world.
We have always rejected external evaluations of groups and individuals based on validated scales or instruments created by self-proclaimed experts who claimed the authority to assess and suggest modifications to what we were doing. Despite our opposition, some of these groups managed to infiltrate certain Learning Communities and severely harmed their outcomes—sometimes even destroying the entire project. The stance we took in Learning Communities has now become a requirement in scientific research across all fields: social impact is a must. No instrument should be applied in a school unless it has previously demonstrated improved outcomes elsewhere—just like no medication can be used in a hospital unless it has proven to solve the health problem.
Doing otherwise violates all scientific and ethical principles and uses children as guinea pigs for other interests. Masking methodological dogmatism under the guise of high or low expectations is very dangerous. High expectations are a requirement in any Successful Educational Action (SEA), and therefore also in Interactive Groups. But it must be made clear that this does not depend on methodological choices.
We call on all researchers and groups who truly want to contribute to the right to education to come into schools as volunteers and, at the same time, carry out research aligned with the highest level of international scientific excellence—the kind that has led to these improved results. Do not come to test if your idea works or if your beloved validated scales are useful.
Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Barcelona
Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Barcelona.
Extensive experience in the participation of EU funded research projects particularly from the EC’s Framework Programme.
Co-editor of RASP: Research on Ageing and Social Policy.