“As readers, we remain in the nursery stage so long as we cannot distinguish between taste and judgment, so long, that is, as the only possible verdicts we can pass on a book are two: this I like; this I don’t like.
For an adult reader, the possible verdicts are five:
- I can see this is good and I like it;
- I can see this is good but I don’t like it;
- I can see this is good and, though at present I don’t like it, I believe that with perseverance I shall come to like it;
- I can see that this is trash but I like it;
- I can see that this is trash and I don’t like it.”
― W.H. Auden, A Certain World: A Commonplace Book
Not only are these words useful in teaching English, music, art, or film; they are useful in pondering our reactions to education reform arguments, with slight edits:
For a thoughtful educator, the possible verdicts when considering reform-related arguments are five:
- I can see this is well-reasoned and I like its answers;
- I can see this is well-reasoned but I don’t like its answers;
- I can see this is well-reasoned and, though at present I don’t like it (or fully understand it), I believe that with perseverance I might come to understand its virtues;
- I haven’t determined whether this is well-reasoned, but I like its answers;
- I haven’t determined whether this is well-reasoned, and I don’t like its answers.
If more people pondered the difference between #1 and #4 and #2 and #5 we would be better off in this field. [Corrected].
PS: Yes, I know I altered the last 2 from the original (I said “slightly edited”). There was apparently only opaque method to my madness. But I like it the way it is. Perhaps you’ll ponder why?
24 Responses
This evaluative process is not just good for teachers or for arguments about reform, but is something we should actively be teaching students so that they do not become adults who think there are just two possible options. I use something similar, with the addition of “Why?”, to help my students evaluate arguments on all kinds of topics. Using similar language to craft critiques can also make them easier to hear and less likely to result in an “argument” when there is disagreement.
Wow- hmmm…. I can see this is condescending and I don’t like it. Geez. I have faith that most in this “debate” are well intending and thoughtful. There are always a few where everything is “black and white” but not worthy of a blog post. Or maybe I hold blog posts up too highly. I know this is trash but I like it? ha!
You have more faith than I do. You must not read a lot of blogs:)
Youve left out recognizing when an argument is NOT well reasoned, with possiblities for liking and for not liking the resulting conclusions.
By design.
I happen to love Auden’s words and wisdom. But I am saddened by the cynicism and the anger of so many respondents who comment on your reasoned opinions – whether I agree with you or others. Some people pose thoughtful comments, and I can engage, and it doesn’t matter whether I myself ultimately share your specific perspective or not. But the simmering rage behind the angry reactions — all that comes from those individuals working with the nation’s children and young people. It’s hard to imagine those emotions somehow not affecting other adults as well as the students themselves. It’s a corollary to my concern that so few arguing for this position or that position ever reference the kids as the common denominator — as though a tenured or nontenured teacher, with or without seniority, for example, could teach in an empty room and still be a great role model.
Thanks for this. I, too, am bothered by how unreasonable many comments (and blog posts) are these days. And it is indeed ironic in the face of the Common Core focus on sound argument.
And as long as kids do not have a lobby or union to fight for their interests (when they happen to conflict with adult interests), we have to keep fighting for them. The vitriol directed against the Judge’s decision in some quarters, with nary a mention of kid rights, was particularly disheartening. It made me wonder how many educators were opposed to the Brown vs. Board decision during the day. “Oh, but that was different!” No, it really wasn’t at all – which is why the Judge referenced it. With 20-20 hindsight, we will see, I am sure, that Charters and this decision were reasonable attempts to balance the scales on behalf of the kids with the greatest educational needs. (So few current younger liberals recall that “school choice” was a LIBERAL proposal to end “separate but unequal” schooling.)
I think it adds to the problem to imply that those who do not post “about the kids” must not be putting them “first”. It’s insulting to those “liberals” who have reasonable arguments to make against “reform”. I’ll agree to argue the merits of the discussion if you will. But this post isn’t about the merits of the discussion. This is about implying that those who differ in opinion are not reasonable.
We disagree. About the point of my piece and of the importance of honesty in calling a spade a spade concerning how teachers hurt themselves and the reform cause by not making stronger arguments. How can it be insulting? All I ask is for people to read more carefully and argue more carefully. Never mind that the histrionics and exaggerations do NOTHING to convince those who disagree with them but who might be persuaded to listen. Read the CFA and NEA response to the Judge’s ruling – pathetic. Read the number of more thoughtful responses that none the less completely misrepresent what the Judge actually said (i.e. he did not speak negatively of tenure or propose eliminating it, but you wouldn’t know that from the numerous hysterical and ad hominem posts.)
No argument is won, no allies are found by such poor reasoning. Don’t you see that? Don’t you see that the unions time and again shoot themselves in the foot and turn off the greater public? Is it any wonder that people in general have become anti-union when they publish such rubbish and work hard to protect the weak teachers? Why do you think Charters are so successful in NYC if not because of the failure of the system to respond to need? No one is brainwashing those families who are happily voting with their feet.
Until and unless the critics of reform deal with the real and chronic weaknesses of public schools they will continue to find a smaller and smaller pool of willing allies. The constant blaming of ‘poverty’ can actually be read as a subtle blaming of students and families – and indeed that is how many on the outside of this debate take such reasoning.
Admit what’s wrong, work to solve it as a united team of educators. Don’t blame everyone but yourselves, which is what is happening far too often in urban education. The kids have rights that for decades have been overlooked. That’s a fact, that’s what the judge decried and ruled, and the adults need to get on with REALLY questioning and altering their own behavior if those rights are to be honored. That’s not insulting, those are the facts and to take insult where none was intended is to find yet another reason to evade doing the right thing out of ‘outrage’.
I’m just stunned by your reply. It’s hard to debate you when you generalize all who are against “reform” with one broad stroke and yet at the same time you fault others who do that. Whaa? You cite “how can it be insulting” after posting: “the importance of honesty in calling a spade a spade concerning how teachers hurt themselves and the reform cause by not making stronger arguments.” And then you go on to say teachers are not arguing “carefully” enough. And on it goes to argue unions are not using logic and are misrepresenting. How could that not be insulting?
Instead, take those “weak” arguments and discuss them. But you are not doing that here. You are scolding others as to how you do not approve of how they are arguing. Ok then you don’t like how people debate. Maybe they never had a proper debate class. Maybe they did not take statistical measurements in college so they don not understand how to interpret studies. Maybe they are emotionally involved as people who have been negatively impacted by the “reforms” and have trouble being “objective”.
I perfectly agree that we must always strive to be objective and make reasoned arguments. I excuse some who have difficulty with this. You are not simply stating that though- you are going further. Your post really brings in to question some of your more reasoned posts. You are right- when one uses histrionics and exaggerations such as you have here, one is less likely to listen. I’m hoping maybe you’ll stop doing that as I think you are worth listening to for the most part. That’s why I read your blog.
Invoking the Six Facets of Understanding (UbD, Wiggins & McTighe), I’ll note that “an opinion and a perspective are not the same thing.” Auden’s framework (and Grant’s translating of it to discussing education) represents possible perspectives and assumes that each one can be followed by a well-reasoned and substantive set of claims supported by evidence (from experience, from the text, from data, etc.). I’m not seeing that this post is about people with a certain perspective being necessarily unreasonable…
I like this. I have been looking for a better way to explain taste versus judgment to my kids in Art History. The old “Well, I may not know art, but I know what I like” really is about taste. Helping my students make a well-reasoned, thoughtful response to art they are unfamiliar with, and often uncomfortable with, can certainly be a challenge. thank you1
You’re welcome! I thought it would be perfect for art and music classes.
You forgot
#6 I can see this is poorly reasoned and after much reflection I know I don’t like it. (In case you’re wondering, I’m not referring to CCSS specifically, but rather the mandated testing. )
A complex issue will have strong arguments for both sides that must be addressed directly in order for there to be progress or even interesting clash. Personally, I never have a problem with this because I don’t go to discussions where the purpose is to preach to the choir and celebrate our enlightened agreement. That kind of exchange is a bit of “who cares?” for me. So, I came to your site. The problem with debating in this kind of forum, however, is that it’s not really an open one. Each party does not have equal ability to make their claims and back them up with evidence (as long as they are not abusive, of course).
Because it is your blog,you decide what arguments will be published. That limits the free exchange of ideas to those you choose. It’s a form of power that allows you to sculpt the message and label or avoid arguments that oppose your views. You know that your job is to stay on your own message and ignore relevant arguments of others and tsk tsk with allies about the unreasoned arguments of others (while never engaging those arguments directly). You’ll post some views that disagree, of course, since only posting approval messages would conflict with another interest you have which is in traffic to your blog. Who goes to read a pile of “yeah, me too” messages? Clearly, you’ve had a little media training, if perhaps not quite enough.
The reason I added your blog to my email list was because I wanted to read and respond to opposing views, and I wanted to tangle with big issues. But,I want to engage directly on points not just add to your traffic and be frustrated when you don’t engage direct arguments (like specific evidence that tenure is more than job protection, but never mind). And I’m irritated by the “isn’t it too bad that no one has a reasoned argument but me; let me school them” subtext. Irritation has kept me coming back for the last few days… and I need a solution. I am cutting myself off. I can’t continue to get your blog in my inbox or your tweets in my tweetdeck. Occasionally, I may visit your blog or find out about something you’ve written that I want to read and perhaps I may respond again which you can feel free not to post. I’m sorry that you didn’t want to address issues directly or consider the possibility that you might be on the wrong side of some things, but I’m also grateful to you because I spent two whole evenings thinking about what you were saying… and I think my time would be better spent elsewhere.
I post almost 100% of all comments. I only do not post comments that are insulting with no argument to them.
I respond to more comments than almost all bloggers.
We disagree on my failure to engage. I do not see where I have failed to engage; you might try to help me understand. (That’s a rare comment here from posters, in fact, that I don’t engage, as you can see from looking at them over time.)
Your choice to stay or go.
Well, I have to say Grant, you do and you don’t. Like, for example, when I posted a discussion of my concerns about avoiding pointing fingers, generalizing about those who differ in opinion instead of sticking to a debate on the merits. Instead of directly responding to why you are posting a blog on generalizations about “those people” (my emphasis) instead of a topic we can all debate, you say you “disagree” and then go on to complain about “critics of reform” and how they need to stop “blaming everyone but themselves”. This isn’t a policy discussion. This isn’t interesting to me. And, being a “liberal” and a “reform critic”, I find it insulting. Despite what you claim, it is insulting to be lumped in with a group of people and summarily dismissed as lacking “reasoned” arguments. So, I think this poster (audhilly) has some good points. I’m sticking with you though as I hope you will minimize this type of posting in the future and stick with discussions of a more elevated topic.
Different cases in my book. Many “critics” make unsubstantiated sweeping charges about “corporatists” behind all “reform” and I simply have no interest in going there because it evades the issues of reform and, to me, it is not generalizable to all reform by a long shot – any more than bad teachers generalize to all teachers by a long shot. Educators DO need to stop blaming everyone but themselves; it is dumb strategy, believe me. I stand by my comments. (And if you felt lumped in with the unreasoned group then that’s your issue, not mine. I wasn’t thinking at all about the people who post comments on my blog. I was thinking about the kinds of comments on Diane Ravitch’s blog which are 99% of the YAY!!! we’re right and they’re wrong variety.
BTW, Every post cannot be a gem. It takes a fair amount of time to write them and respond. I cannot afford to make it my life: I do this for free, recall! So, I’ll accept that the last one wasn’t one of my better ones. I thought it was cute when I wrote it. Not so cute anymore, perhaps. On to the next one…
Geez Grant. It’s my problem if I feel lumped in with those you are making sweeping generalizations about? Ha! Believe me, I’m not losing sleep over your comments. My reply is to note that your statements are just what you are griping about – sweeping generalizations and accusations. You are right- generalizations and lumping all in a group is not a good thing. So stop it already then.
I didn’t make any sweeping generalizations. Read the post.
My comment was in reply to your comment that included generalizations. And your blog post seems to generalize that if you differ in opinion, you are unreasonable. Things are more subtle and gray. Why can’t we all just get along? ; )
It requires me to back to previous posts without the benefit of one that you did not post, but let me see. ..
My main arguments were these:
1) There is an obvious and explicit attack on workplace rights as illustrated by the removal of teachers and their replacement by TFA grads in cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, NY, New Orleans, Kansas City and Newark. This is related to the proliferation of charters and co-location which is also a means for taking over infrastructure and reducing the number of tenured employees. You did not address this argument at all.
2) tenure is not just about job protection. I listed several real situations (and there were more where that came from) in which lack of tenure would have put me at risk of losing my job for not complying with immoral or politically motivated demands; You did not address this argument at all.
3) The importance of seniority in an economic downturn is that it is a protection against being let go for economic reasons. If you can buy two teachers for the price of one, it can be argued that it is in the interests of class size and therefore teachers continue to live in pernicious insecurity. You did address this one with a question about why older teachers aren’t let go in private schools. I don’t think we have proof that they aren’t, but I would agree that they probably are not. I would note also that private school supported with tuition and development dollars and are not in our fiscal situation.Their ability to meet their budget isn’t subject to decreases in state and federal aid, new test related costs, tax cuts and tax caps. I would also note that private school teachers wear many hats and it would be more difficult to tighten belts where consumers pay directly for services.
4) Talented people go where their talents and commitment are respected. What won’t keep them is a year to year contract in a beleagured, low status profession where your employer thinks that leadership is about classroom visits to keep you doing your job…. what person of talent would jump at that career? I illustrated this point with the loss of 75% of the science teachers in my husband’s high school when the principal made it clear that no one was getting tenure in her building. I might have added that she visited classrooms constantly which may seem like a great thing to some but made the staff feel untrusted and devalued. My husband was an excellent teacher and well liked by administrators, colleagues and kids alike… but he saw where it was going and decided to leave, as did many of his friends. None of the teachers I mentioned were marginal. In fact, the one marginal teacher my husband mentioned from that school was hanging on for dear life. Where else was she going to go?
You responded to portions of my argument with the primary argument was that I was engaging in “doomsday” and “slippery slope” thinking. In essence, you dismissed my argument without engaging it. The evidence was specific, logical in hypothetical cases and common knowledge in at least the first case. I would have liked to hear your argument on all four points.
I did not not post any comment from you. Something must have gone wrong or it got bumped to spam.
I’ll respond to your points when I get time this month. Obviously it’s a lot to respond to.
BTW I find it disconcerting when people post anonymously. It’s weird to have a conversation with people you don’t even know who they are or what their background is.
One reason teachers post anonymously is because they are more likely to be fired for expressing their opinions–it’s one of the ways in which admins can get around those pesky tenure restrictions.
There’s a difference between “drive-by anonymity” and someone with a clear identity who simply doesn’t give you a name. I’ve got a blog with 2.5 years of history in it. I’ve got an “about” page. The only thing people don’t get to know is a) my name and b) whether or not I’m making it all up. As to the first, too bad. As to the second, plenty of people who do use their own names make things up. So you just have to use your judgment.
But that’s not what I stopped by to write about.
There’s apparently some debate history going on between the participants of which I am unaware, so my comments are purely on the post and comments text as I read them.
Grant’s original post left out the “false problem definition” case.
For example, suppose someone wrote a “well-reasoned” analysis of why charters are a successful response to “failing schools”. Nowhere on Grant’s list do I see the categorical response for “Schools aren’t failing”. It’s irrelevant whether or not it’s well-reasoned. The entire problem is false.
Similarly, Grant’s comment about the flaws in teacher dialog (as I understand it) is definitely not well-reasoned and oddly emotional, but all of those problems are irrelevant in comparison to his various flawed premises:
1)The public is anti-teacher union.
2) Schools are failing, and teachers need to have a response for this.
3) Schools are failing because of bad teachers, and teachers need to understand they must answer for this.
4) Bad employees must be fired, and teachers are sui generis in this regard.
All of these are unfounded premises. I’m not particularly interested in discussing them; I’m just pointing out that Grant’s typology doesn’t account for the flawed premise. and the flawed premise is an overwhelming issue in education discourse.