A while ago, my daughter’s school explained to parents that they were reorganising literacy classes, moving to mixed-ability groups. My wife asked a simple question: “What is the evidence behind the decision to change?” The result was blank incomprehension. Evidence? 一段时间以前，我女儿的学校对家长们解释称，他们正在改变识字班的编排，将采用不同能力学生混编的模式。我妻子提了一个简单的问题：“这一调整决定是基于什么实证依据做出的？”结果学校方面表示完全无法理解。这种调整居然还需要证据支撑？

Only a couple of generations ago, most doctors had a similar attitude to evidence-based practice. Fancy statistical procedures were thought to be no match for experience, especially since every case was unique. Randomised trials were all very well in theory, but unethical in practice. That scepticism has now been completely transformed in medicine: evidence trumps seniority, while individual judgment is bolstered by online libraries full of careful analysis. 仅仅在几代人之前，绝大多数医生对基于实证的诊疗模式也持类似的态度。花哨的统计学步骤被认为无法与实际经验匹敌，特别是由于每个病例都有其独特性。随机试验在理论上或许可行，在实践操作中却不符合道德标准。而现在，医学领域的这种怀疑主义已经发生了彻底的转变：证据比经验更有说服力，而充满各种详尽分析的线上图书馆也给个人判断增添了底气。

Teachers have allowed themselves to be left behind in the evidence revolution. I sympathise with the profession which is constantly second-guessed by parents and school inspectors. Teachers have grown used to fad after fad being hurled at them from the Department for Education. 教师们在这场实证革命中自甘落后。我对教师这一职业深感同情，他们总是被事后诸葛亮的家长以及学校督查们挑剔批评。教师们也已习惯了英国教育部(Department of Education)不断向他们发出的苛责。

But I agree with Ben Goldacre – epidemiologist and author of an excellent polemic on evidence-based education commissioned by the DfE itself – when he argues that if the teaching profession embraced the evidence-based approach, it would enhance rather than diminish its independence from government. The facts, after all, rarely slot neatly into political ideologies. At a recent dinner organised by the Wellcome Trust, the British educational establishment – with, alas, only one teacher present – discussed the issue. The longstanding tension between teachers and governments was clearly recognised as an obstacle – but it’s one that can be sidestepped if teachers themselves seize the evidence agenda. 但我同意本•高达可(Ben Goldacre)的观点，他是一位流行病学家，并受教育部委托著有关于实证式教育方法的出色论著。高达可指出，如果教育领域采纳基于实证的工作方法，将有助于加强而非减弱其相对于政府的独立性。毕竟，客观事实很少能够恰好符合政治领域的意识形态。在近期由英国教育机构惠康基金会(Wellcome Trust)组织的一次晚宴上就讨论了这一问题——可惜出席者中仅有一名教师。教师与政府之间的长期紧张关系被明确认定为一大障碍——但如果教师们自己抓住向实证式教学法转型的机会，则可绕过这一绊脚石。

This is about much more than simply running randomised trials comparing different approaches to teaching. Consider the situation in clinical practice, as outlined by Professor Jonathan Shepherd, who argues that the secret is a tight plait of research, practice and continuing education. Trainee doctors are taught by practising clinicians. Those clinicians are also researchers, whose research agenda is closely influenced by their clinical experience. Research networks link together qualified researchers with GPs who have patients and research ideas. And once qualified, doctors continue to have the latest evidence pushed under their noses in the likes of the British Medical Journal. 这并不仅仅意味着通过随机试验来比较不同教学方法的效果。让我们思考一下临床实践中的情形，乔纳森•谢泼德(Jonathan Shepherd)教授对此做过概括。他认为，问题的关键在于将研究、实践与继续教育紧密结合在一起。临床医师们在实际诊疗中指导实习医生，这些临床医师同时还是科研人员，他们的研究计划与临床实践密切相关。研究网络将高素质的研究人员与兼具病人资源与研究构想的全科家庭医生联系起来。而研究成果一旦通过审核，医生们将不断地把他们在临床操作中遇到的最新实证证据发表在像《英国医学杂志》(British Medical Journal)这样的期刊上。

In short, evidence-based practice in medicine isn’t a case of doctors, brainwashed into believing whatever clinical trials tell them, passively awaiting instructions. It’s a two-way street, where some of the best ideas for research are suggested by practitioners, and best practice spreads sideways from clinician to clinician rather than being handed down by diktat. There is nothing fundamental about education that makes this impossible – witness the “journal clubs” in Singapore and Shanghai, where teachers discuss and evaluate the latest research. 简而言之，医学领域基于实证的诊疗模式并不是医生们被实证洗脑，相信临床试验告诉他们的任何结论，并被动地等待指示。正相反，这是一条双向通道，一方面，临床医生提出一些最优秀的研究构想，另一方面，最优的操作方法在临床医生之间横向传播，而非像绝对命令那样向下传达。在教育领域并不存在导致这一双向模式无法实现的基础限制——例如在新加坡和上海就出现了“期刊俱乐部”，教师们通过这种形式讨论并评价最新的研究成果。

One can see why Dr Goldacre calls this a “prize”. Teachers are better placed than anybody to generate new research questions, based on years of observation of subtleties that would escape any educational statistician. There is, at last, some institutional support: the Institute for Effective Education at the University of York, for instance; or the Education Endowment Foundation, two years old this month, which is already running 50 randomised trials in schools, with a grant of £125m from the DfE. 人们很容易理解高达可为何将实证式教学称作一种“嘉奖”。教师在提出新的研究构想方面比其他任何人都更具优势，他们对于教育统计学家发现不了的细微之处有着长达多年的观察积累。更难得的是，还有一些机构能向教师提供帮助：例如约克大学(University of York)的有效教育研究中心(Institute for Effective Education)，或者是教育捐助基金会(Education Endowment Foundation)。后者4月迎来了成立两周年纪念日，目前其在学校中已经进行了50项随机试验，并且获得了来自教育部的1.25亿英镑拨款。

“Trust me, I’m a doctor” was never an excuse for not collecting evidence. And “trust me, I’m a teacher” is not an excuse today. But being a teacher is a superb vantage point for building an evidence-based education system. It is an opportunity that teachers need to seize. “相信我，我是一名医生”从来都不能成为不收集实证证据的借口。而如今，“相信我，我是一名教师”也同样不是不去寻找实证支撑的理由。但作为老师，他们处于构建一个基于实证的教育体系的有利地位。这是教师们应当抓住的机遇。