Policy, People and Change

Exact. Precise. Explanatory.

When I think of science, these are some of the first words that come to mind. There is comfort in relying on facts produced through scientific observation and testing. That comfort can be especially powerful when those facts appear to align neatly with one’s own beliefs or assumptions.

A few years ago, The New York Times published a podcast examining the public debate over what was true about COVID-19—a global pandemic that disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life. Opinions varied widely regarding the best, and sometimes the only, way to protect people from the spread of the virus. Masks, social distancing, and virtual interactions quickly became the new—and deeply unpopular—normal.

Policies were developed by “experts” using the best data available at the time, but those data were inevitably filtered through human judgment, bias, and fallibility. “Follow the science” emerged as a rallying cry to justify a range of approaches to managing the pandemic and its effects. Yet the very nature of science—often perceived as exact and definitive—created a false sense of certainty. Given the novelty and scale of a worldwide pandemic, such certainty was neither realistic nor sustainable.

One key lesson emphasized in the podcast was the necessity of adjusting policy as circumstances change. As a preservice teacher, I was trained in the practice of “monitor and adjust”: continuously assessing what is happening in real time and refining instruction accordingly. When working with human beings—individuals with unique needs, perspectives, and limitations—it is unrealistic to operate as though we are producing identical widgets on an assembly line. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Education, like public policy, is both a science and an art and therefore requires flexibility. Over the course of my teaching career, I have witnessed the pendulum swing of curricular and instructional approaches as dominant philosophies rise, fall, and are later revisited. This movement is not a flaw but a reflection of learning within a complex system. Education, like other complex social systems, rarely responds in predictable ways. Progress often comes through experimentation, reflection, and refinement.

For this reason, it is not only acceptable but essential for policymakers to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and remain open to revising previous approaches as new evidence and experience emerge. Professional humility allows leaders to recognize that they do not have all the answers and must remain open to critique and correction. Valuing diverse perspectives and practicing intellectual honesty strengthens policymaking rather than weakens it.

Ultimately, while science can inform decisions, it cannot determine values or priorities on its own. Interpreting and applying scientific evidence always involves human judgment. Those choices—and the responsibility for them—belong to the people.