An article I read awhile back seems relevant to the recent back and forth between/among Ed Sector's Kevin Carey, eduwonkette/skoolboy, and Sherman Dorn about what kind of education research should lead to policy changes.

I was flipping through the pages of the Journal of Economic Psychology -- okay, this isn't quite true.  I was actually reading The Atlantic, (about as intellectual a pursuit as I can manage,) and, right there, alongside a photo of a diving goalkeeper, was a very brief article* that summarized the findings of the journal article.

Anyway, the journal article, titled "Action Bias Among Elite Soccer Goalkeepers: The Case of Penalty Kicks," finds that soccer goalies trying to block penalty kicks "almost always jump right or left" even though "the optimal strategy...is to stay in the goal's center."  The authors theorize that "a goal scored yields worse feelings for the goalkeeper following inaction (staying in the center) than following action (jumping), leading to a bias for action."  (As is often the case, Sherman Dorn was ahead of the curve, blogging in February 2007 about a similar bias regarding school uniforms and single-sex education.)

A key to understanding the journal article is the authors' contention that, in soccer, unlike other endeavors, the norm is to take action. Goalies dive somewhere because standing and letting the ball go by makes them look foolish.  I'd argue that, given the decades-long war on the reputation of public schools, change -- any change -- is also the norm for many education reformers. 

So, go ahead and dive, Kevin.  It'll look good to the fans.

*You can get to The Atlantic article by clicking on "cache" after doing a Google search for "economists 1, goalies 0."