I love this. Spot on. What I’d add is that I find it insane we don’t teach this. Instead, in English, we tend to teach a model of ‘persuasive’ writing that encodes an idea of winning and losing, and sees persuasion as a function of rhetoric not empathy and logical thinking.
Huge amount of truth here. We are unlikely to move discussion on if we assume poor intentions of others, although I not convinced social media is where these debates are actually won, at least not between participants who have often dug the heels in. It's more likely the more ambivalent onlookers, some of whom may well be in a position to enact change.
Weirdly David, I spent a couple of years researching conservative thought and traditionalism to see what there is in the traditionalist 'canon' that could be danced with, compromised with, retained. I enjoyed Scruton and felt him to be a very interesting thinker. Mainly, however, my conclusion as to the education culture wars was that, as it is in wars related to class, one side had set down its tools and allowed the other to dominate by being too reasonable, by seeking compromise, some form of common ground. As a result, we've got many, many toxic versions of schooling in which students are subject to inhuman regimes and they vote with their feet. I tend, as what I'd term a 'democratic educator' rather than 'progressive', towards thinking that the educational theorists who dominate debate are wilfully blind to the realities that their theorising has created. I enjoyed your piece but feel some ideas, silent corridors, for instance, are not respectable and by submitting to the rather base logic behind them we are condemning children to abusive forms of schooling, and that this is serious. I've been at the sharp end of the reform movement, in a classroom as a teacher, seeing the results of poorly thought out implementation of not altogether innocent ideas and it is, perhaps, uglier than you might imagine.
I love this. Spot on. What I’d add is that I find it insane we don’t teach this. Instead, in English, we tend to teach a model of ‘persuasive’ writing that encodes an idea of winning and losing, and sees persuasion as a function of rhetoric not empathy and logical thinking.
This is really helpful, thank you! Getting quite a lot of defensive dog whistles towards the OAT English curriculum atm!
This is excellent, and not just for those working in education. Will be sharing with my students!
Huge amount of truth here. We are unlikely to move discussion on if we assume poor intentions of others, although I not convinced social media is where these debates are actually won, at least not between participants who have often dug the heels in. It's more likely the more ambivalent onlookers, some of whom may well be in a position to enact change.
Agreed, it’s not about ‘winning’ it’s about remaining respectful for the benefit of neutral observers:)
Weirdly David, I spent a couple of years researching conservative thought and traditionalism to see what there is in the traditionalist 'canon' that could be danced with, compromised with, retained. I enjoyed Scruton and felt him to be a very interesting thinker. Mainly, however, my conclusion as to the education culture wars was that, as it is in wars related to class, one side had set down its tools and allowed the other to dominate by being too reasonable, by seeking compromise, some form of common ground. As a result, we've got many, many toxic versions of schooling in which students are subject to inhuman regimes and they vote with their feet. I tend, as what I'd term a 'democratic educator' rather than 'progressive', towards thinking that the educational theorists who dominate debate are wilfully blind to the realities that their theorising has created. I enjoyed your piece but feel some ideas, silent corridors, for instance, are not respectable and by submitting to the rather base logic behind them we are condemning children to abusive forms of schooling, and that this is serious. I've been at the sharp end of the reform movement, in a classroom as a teacher, seeing the results of poorly thought out implementation of not altogether innocent ideas and it is, perhaps, uglier than you might imagine.