There is much to be said for evidence-based decision-making, but it is not a fool-proof formula. I am happy that Dr Shamsul Arifeen Khan Mamun has taken the time to read my op-ed piece on education reform (“We need education reforms that actually work,” The Daily Star , March 15) and wrote a rebuttal (“Evidence, not assumptions, should guide education reform,” The Daily Star, March 19).

The title suggests the main argument of his rebuttal. The writer asserts that my points about education reform were based on assumptions, not supported by research evidence. First, the writer objects to the contention that the main reason for students in our schools resorting to private coaching is poor teaching and learning in our classrooms. He cited examples of Singapore and Korea, where private tutoring is common and contributes to “educational success.” He cited the evidence of a study which showed that private lessons improved students’ educational outcome, but omitted the second conclusion of the same study that private coaching induced students to resort to “rote memorisation” and impaired students’ critical thinking.

My original argument was that the much-discussed policy prescription of banning or severely restricting private coaching was not the solution; rather, attention is needed to improve classroom instruction and rethinking examinations which encourage memorised answers. In any event, the ban and restriction could not be enforced because the conditions supporting the practice were not addressed. The rebuttal missed this point and ignored the context of our schools.

The author objects to the suggestion that a holistic system view—analysing the connections between inputs, processes, and outputs—is needed in education reform, because piecemeal, ad hoc and fragmented actions did not produce desired results. The writer cites some critiques of the systems approach, but ignores others providing contrary conclusions. In fact, the seminal Coleman study in the US, which he cites, concludes that students’ socio-economic background mattered as much or more in students’ school performance as actions taken in school. The inference drawn by researchers and policy-makers is that student socio-economic background should be seen as a critical input factor.

The writer also cites studies of production function (how inputs relate to outputs in education) and implies that these studies indicated an abandonment of the systems approach in educational reform. Production function analysis is a specific application of systems thinking. Actually, the studies pointed out the difficulties of applying the industrial model of production function in education, but suggested adopting a nuanced approach in analysing the relationship. One study he cited (Wenglinsky, 1997) considered that the production function analysis is “salvageable” when applied with care. The other study (Hanushek, 2020) reaches the logical conclusion that how resources are used is more important in influencing educational outcomes than how much resource is provided. Neither suggested an abandonment of the production function analysis nor had any specific observation about the system approach. The writer’s conclusion is an example of the dangers of selection bias, faulty analysis, and misinterpretation of evidence.

The writer also objects to the suggestion that scholarship examinations at the end of class five and class eight in our schools are not helpful to the majority of students. These exams divert attention and effort of teachers from the majority of poorly performing students in a class to a small number of better performing students who would sit for the scholarship exam and earn a name for the school. Plain logic and sufficient empirical evidence show that scholarship exams did nothing to improve instruction for the majority of students. Talented students should be encouraged to do even better, but any action that benefits a few at the cost of many cannot be an acceptable solution.

There is no basic disagreement with the proposition that evidence should guide reform. There is more to it than this statement implies. To begin with, who determines what the problem is, how do they make that decision, and what evidence do they choose to look for. Do policy-makers selectively pick evidence to justify a pre-determined political agenda, ignoring research that does not support a preferred position? This is indeed a risk that is present in decision-making in a complex and sensitive area as education reform. Absence of a holistic system view also increases the risk of picking and choosing isolated problems and partial solutions or non-solutions.

The writer’s rebuttal itself illustrates the danger of decontextualised and technocratic picking of evidence to justify policy decisions. Logic, common sense, and democratic participation of stakeholders mediated by a guiding framework of moral and ethical principles have to be applied in defining problems and making evidence-based decisions.

The main argument of my original article was that we need to adopt a holistic and systemic view and move away from partial, fragmented and ad hoc actions in a fire-fighting mode to initiate sustainable and effective reform. To continue with the analogy, the aim should be to prevent the risk of fire by taking necessary steps, rather than dousing the fire after it happens.

The discussion of specific policy actions in my article was to illustrate the importance of a system view as opposed to isolated actions. The key action recommendation was the recognition of the need for a policy-making and decision-making culture and mechanism that permits a dedicated team of professionals with relevant competence and experience to be engaged in designing the reform and guiding its implementation. This would include seeking relevant evidence and analysing its pertinence. I hope the policy-makers see the logic of this approach.