Why All Leadership Faculty Should Initiate A Reform of Quantitative Methods Courses - Call to Action

Oct 15, 2026

Reform of quantitative methods courses in leadership programs is urged because traditional statistics—often framed as “rigorous” evidence—can mislead school practice and fail even when claims are supported by high-profile evidence systems. The article argues that current courses overemphasize technical, esoteric methods suited to laboratory-style PhD research rather than complex school and hospital decision-making. It recommends replacing the label “Statistics” with “Applied Quantitative Methods,” adopting newer and simpler approaches, and ensuring leadership faculty shape course content using expertise rooted in real practice.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Why reform is necessary

Limits of traditional statistics

Shifting course content and framing

From “Statistics” to “Applied Quantitative Methods”

Leadership faculty call to action

Reclaim control of course design

Resource for grassroots reform

Alternative textbook support

Why All Leadership Faculty Should Initiate A Reform of Quantitative Methods Courses Stanley Pogrow San Francisco State University (Emeritus, University of Arizona) It is time to reform the quantitative methods courses in leadership programs – typically, these are statistics courses with arcane statistics textbooks. There is growing evidence that these“rigorous” scientific methods actually mislead practice because the vast majority ofpractices found to be “effective” or “evidence-based” using these methods do not work in schools – including those validated by the federal What Works Clearinghouse. Fortunately, there are other quantitative methods that are more intuitive, and more accessible to leaders, leadership students, and leadership faculty – methods that are more relevant for improving practice and identifying “evidence-based”practices that are likely to actually improve schools. However, those who control the content of quantitative methods courses tend to be those with the most technical expertise in the traditional methods and will oppose any methodological alternatives as being “non-rigorous.” The newer quantitative methods will not be emphasized in EdD and Masters programs until all leadership faculty exert greater voice on the content ofsuch courses. A first step is to stop calling quantitative methods courses “Statistics” courses. They should be“Applied Quantitative Methods” courses. This non-technical article (a) outlines the problems with traditional statistics, (b) highlights some of the newer and simpler quantitative methods that are more relevant for improving schools, and (c) describes an alternative textbook as a key resource for transforming the quantitative methods course. Keywords: quantitative methods, qualitative methods, statistical methods, statistical significance This non-technical article is intended for the vast majority of leadership faculty who have little to no background in statistics. It is intended for those whose expertise is in educational leadership and management – i.e., the vast majority of leadership faculty. This article is a call to arms for the majority of faculty to wrest control of leadership quantitative methods courses away from those steeped in traditional statistical analysis and thereby make the courses more relevant to actually improving schools and solving problems of practice. Quantitative methods courses are usually listed as a statistics course and emphasize the esoteric traditional methods and analyses used by psychologists in laboratory research and medical researchers to test the effects of an individual medicine. Those who question whether these methods are relevant to school leaders are usually cowed when informed that these statistical methods represent rigorous science, and that questioning their use is an indication of an academically weak program. While these methods are indeed rigorous for the purposes for which they were intended – largely PhD forms of basic research – these methods are not valid or useful for informing decisions in complex organizations such as schools and hospitals. Infact, there is growing evidence that the results from the traditional statistical methods have been misdirecting educational practice – particularly results identifying evidence-based practices. Indeed, it will be shown that the more “rigorous” the statistical analyses, and the more prestigious the journals in which the evidence of an effective practice is published, the less likely the findings are valid – e.g., the less likely the practice will in fact improve practice. Reliance on traditional statistical methods is not rigorous science but a misuse of science. The traditional statistics course is the last remaining vestige of PhD programs imposed on EdD programs. Other courses in leadership graduate programs have been updated to meet the needs of leaders seeking to improve their organizations and solve problems of practice. While quantitative methods courses are

FAQs

Why does the article call for reform of quantitative methods courses in leadership programs?

It argues that traditional, highly technical statistics can mislead educational practice and that results labeled “evidence-based” often do not actually improve schools.

What does the article propose changing about these courses?

It recommends reframing the courses as “Applied Quantitative Methods,” emphasizing newer, simpler quantitative approaches more relevant to improving practice.

How does the article position this reform relative to quantitative research?

It states the call to action is not against quantitative research; the author has taught statistics and presented in professional statistical venues.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by dabgoudw