EDITORIAL
The Brain/Education Barrier
IN AN ERA OF TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE, RESEARCHERS OFTEN FIND THEMSELVES IN THE
mixed company of policy-makers, legislators, and educators looking for “evidence-based”
Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek
practice. That’s how it was earlier this year in March, when a distinguished international group
is a professor at Temple
of neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists convened at the University of Chile in Santiago
University, Philadelphia,
for the conference titled Early Education and Human Brain Development, which many Chilean
PA 19122, USA. E-mail:
khirshpa@temple.edu.
ministers, educators, and scientists attended to learn how brain science might transform education.
On day one, however, it became clear that myths about brain-based pedagogy dominated
participants’ thinking. The Chilean educators were looking to brain science for insights about
which type of preschool would be the most effective, whether children are safe in child care, and
how best to teach reading. The brain research presented at the conference that day was mute on
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on September 7, 2007
these issues. However, cognitive and behavioral science could help.
How could an international group of scientists communicate that there is superb developmen-
tal evidence that speaks directly to educational concerns, whereas brain sci-
ence cannot yet do so? How might brain science become an aspect, rather
than the driving force, of ongoing educational discussions? To address these
questions, we and scientists from Chile, France, Germany, Holland, Spain,
the United Kingdom, and the United States drafted the Santiago Declaration,
a statement reflecting what science can tell us about early education. It sum-
marizes knowledge about child development and early learning, the benefits
of embedding learning in meaningful social contexts, the importance of
John T. Bruer is president active rather than passive learning, the need for sensitive and responsive envi-
of the James S. McDonnell ronments, and the need for concern about how, not just what, children learn.
Foundation, St. Louis, MO We hope that this declaration (www.jsmf.org/declaration) will become a
63117, USA. E-mail: focal point for the discussion of evidence-based educational practice.
bruer@jsmf.org How did the myth of brain-based pedagogy become so pervasive in educa-
tional discussions? How did policy-makers, educators, and the public become so misinformed?
Current worldwide interest in early childhood development can be attributed to a successful
public relations campaign launched in the mid-1990s in the United States. The campaign promoted
legislation to fund Early Head Start. Media interest made the campaign’s message headline news
for parents around the world. Yet brain science, which is still refining methods to analyze early
brain development, is not ready to relate neuronal processes to classroom outcomes.
Current brain research offers a promissory note for a future in which developmental models
and theories of learning may be refined based on how brain systems support learning. Meanwhile,
popular misunderstandings present a serious downside. One example is the emphasis given to the
popular, but scientifically unsupported, notion of a critical period during which children’s brains
can learn almost any subject efficiently. Belief in a biologically limited critical period for learning
mobilized governments, legislators, and media worldwide to pass legislation and fund early
childhood programs. The educational literature is now stocked with books and articles boasting
brain-based curricula and practices. Brain-based consultants continue to visit school districts.
And a market has grown for brain-based toys. The message of synaptic growth and critical periods
has affective appeal, but no scientific substance. Unfortunately, this enthusiasm has caused us to
neglect research that tells us how children learn.
The Santiago conference suggested how scientists might better function in mixed translational
company. We must keep in mind that motivated educators and policy-makers are the end users
of scientific research. Scientists should listen to the practical questions generated by these
consumers. Real dialogue starts when we address misconceptions and misunderstandings across
the research/practice divide. Over time, these conversations can lead to a common vocabulary,
informed engagement, meaningful applied research, and ideally, evidence-based practice. The
conversation might even contribute to more informed policy discussions. We applaud the
CREDIT: RANDY FARIS/CORBIS
attention directed to the world’s youngest citizens, and urge that policies, standards, curricula,
and, to the extent possible, commercial ventures, be sensitive to evidence-based practice based
on the best scientific research.
– Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek and John T. Bruer
10.1126/science.1148983
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 317 7 SEPTEMBER 2007 1293
View publication stats Published by AAAS
