Clinical trials: why not use them in education?

I get envious when I read reports about 15 year or 20 years studies in medicine. They may be imperfect, they may be flawed, they may be biased, but least they are trying to look at the big picture.

One can imagine its questions that would be asked if medicine followed the same methodology as education:

• Did the aspirin taste good?
• Was a doctors office the right temperature?
• Could the patient walk three weeks after her broken leg was set? (This would be an evaluation of the patient, not the doctor.)
• How many patients "expressed interest" in a CAT-scan procedure?
• How many patients finished taking their antibiotics? (This would be an evaluation of the drug company, to see if it should be prescribed in the future.)
• What medicine is available for free? (This is to help the doctor plan for next year, because all of the funds are currently committed to salary and buildings.)
• Did the patient do a great job at eating lots of white bread? Did the patient then eat even more white bread for extra credit?
• Was the blood-letting done in accordance with formal processes?

Some of the clinical studies I would like to see in education are:

• What is a correlation between learning calculus as a student and comfortably using math at age 30?
• What is a correlation between studying literature as a student and applying ethics at age 40?
• What is a correlation between material studied and life expectancy?
• What is a correlation between grades and happiness in life?
• What is a correlation between material studied and divorce rate?

Here's the big question. Do you think the textbook manufacturers would sponsor such long-term studies? They probably have huge vested interest in today's content. Yet I still suspect they would oppose such studies as opposed to support them.

Accountability unchecked flows down the organizational chain. Governments are quick to put the burden on school administrators. School administers are quick to put the burden on teachers. Teachers put the burden on students.

But bad short term metrics make things worse not better. The warm feeling and perceived accountability of measuring anything, especially easy things, are soon overshadowed by the foreboding sense that one is doing something increasingly well it shouldn't be done at all.

If the medical profession can study the application of our ideas and tools over decades to see if they really improve quality of life, why can't we?