When good intentions are not enough. All teachers need to know the results of a classic study, the implications of which are profound ⬇️ 
In 1939, over five hundred boys aged 5-13 from 'factory-dominated areas of eastern Massachusetts', described by schools, welfare agencies, churches, and the police as 'difficult' or 'average' and rated for potential 'delinquency' took part in a study.
Half were randomly assigned to a mentoring program involving counselling on family problems, academic tutoring, summer camps, boy scouts and other community groups. Half were assigned to a do nothing control group.
The intervention lasted for five years except for those subjects who had to drop out due to a counsellor shortage in 1941.
In 1978, researcher John McCord followed-up on the outcomes of the project. He found that when he asked participants, those in the program felt it had a positive effect.
However, when he looked as objective measures of criminal behaviour, death, disease, occupational status, and job satisfaction, the program appeared to have a clear *negative* effect. Technically, this is known as an 'iatrogenic' effect.
McCord suggested several possible explanations
1. Contact with adults that did not share the same values as the families involved
2. The development of a dependency on outside agencies
3. The raising of false expectations
4. Subjects identifying as in need of special help
1. Contact with adults that did not share the same values as the families involved
2. The development of a dependency on outside agencies
3. The raising of false expectations
4. Subjects identifying as in need of special help
Why does the outcome of an old study matter to educators? Without objective measures, all we would have had were positive recollections of subjects to base an evaluation on. Those in education who reject measures need to explain how they would identify iatrogenic effect.
Perhaps most importantly of all, a well intentioned intervention can lead to a negative outcome. Reality will not bend to our virtue. Reality has its own rules. We have a duty to first, do no harm, and that means we have a moral duty to seek objective measures of our work.
If you have enjoyed this thread then please check out by newsletter.
@UnrollHelper
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
