The Destructive Power Of False Dichotomies In Education
Teachers make critical decisions every day. It is inherent in the role for them to be quick thinkers, agile in their responsiveness to the needs of their colleagues, the school, its students and their families, demonstrating nuanced consistency in their interactions with students across the school day (it isn’t as oxymoronic as it sounds), all while maintaining a level of professionalism.
It is a complex matrix with which teachers and school leaders need to grapple, every day.
Education as a sector, and educators as professionals, also must deal with the layers of intervention from outsiders - the higher education research community (whose contribution is always welcomed), the government, media, and other stakeholder groups such as parents. These interventions are often well-meaning, aimed to improving outcomes for our young people, but they can be pitched as a zero-sum game, an all-or-nothing proposition, where the stakes for our young people are incredibly high and where we must act in order for disaster not to befall on them.
Nothing in education should be a zero-sum game, because if there is one thing we have learned from years of educating children and getting better at it all the time, is that one size never fits all. If this is the case, it is always so surprising to read opinion pieces, reviews from ‘advisory bodies’ and government policy statements and soundbites that appear to give teachers little wriggle room in terms of practice. We are meant to recognise the uniqueness and individuality of each student, but we are also meant to subscribe to a particular method of teaching or way of organising curricula, and these are sometimes presented as the only option. If a foil is provided, it is presented as the ‘other’, ‘poor practice’, or ‘avoid this at all costs’. This is difficult to reconcile, both from a position of logic, but also from the premise that the individual child may need an individual response.
Research into effective pedagogies, ways of learning, delivery of curriculum, the future of education and support for the teaching profession is greatly needed, and our body of evidence from which to draw insight into what is effective continues to expand. This is excellent news for the profession. Indeed, engagement with research and data is increasingly becoming ‘part of the furniture’ in regular teacher practice; schools are also investing in leadership in these spaces explicitly, and writing these elements into position descriptions and selection criteria when recruiting at all levels. As useful as research and data are, it has also led to somewhat of an unintended consequence, and that is the feeding of false dichotomies in education. Not by all, but by some, and often these are picked up by the media or our politicians who are keen to contribute a soundbite to the current three-day news cycle. Once they are out in the public domain, they become the zero-sum games we see presented to teachers, with which they are compelled to engage.
False dichotomies are dangerous. Dangerous for teachers, who always want to do the right thing by the students; dangerous for learners, as the implication is that they will receive one thing in the classroom and not the other, when at times they may actually need the other; and dangerous for education policy and the long term development of the profession. One of the most prominent in the media currently is the stoush between explicit instruction and inquiry learning.
Let me make one thing very clear - these are not mutually exclusive ideas, but rather both should be strategies in the tool kit of all teachers to be used to a greater or lesser degree, in the most appropriate context for the learners in front of them. Both are incredibly useful, when used right. If you listen to some of the rhetoric you’d be mistaken for believing that those people not using the strategy being argued for are partaking in the systematic destruction of our future generations. Yes, it can get that heated.
Other false dichotomies that persist (and are therefore continuing to duke it out in the ring) include:
- Knowledge vs. Skills
- Play vs. Academics
- Practical vs. Theoretical thinking
- Mandated curriculum vs. Teacher autonomy
- Academic results vs Inclusion
- Empathy vs. Effectiveness (for leaders)
There is no evidence to suggest that using any one of these particular strategies/dispositions is the one that will work in every context. For some of them, there is no evidence to suggest that they will work best in most contexts either. So let’s stop treating valid and valuable ideas and structures like they are the downfall of civilisation, and stop looking for the secret sauce in education. Instead, let’s refocus acutely on our learners and what they need at that particular point in time. Let’s be present, attentive and adaptable in the classroom. Teachers and leaders, don’t drink the koolaid - add to your toolkit but don’t be fooled with promises of a unicorn.
It’s too complex a matrix to be that simple.
Melissa Riley
ACEL VIC Branch Executive Member