I've had an interesting experience the last couple of days sparring with education historian Diane Ravitch and readers of her blog over my post challenging her reactions (and those of others) to the new Gates-funded research using biometric sensors to measure student engagement. Ravitch responded to me on her blog, and that generated a lot of dialogue with some of her passionate followers, whose comments ranged from the thoughtful and insightful to the bizarre and uninformed.
In the midst of all that give and take, I gained some new understandings, both of myself and others, and of how meaningful intellectual dialogue should work. I'd like to reflect a bit on this debate, and acknowledge some missteps on my own part.
My original blog post called Ravitch's response (and those of others) to biometric engagement research "hysterical." Ravitch seized on that word, not so subtly suggesting that it was a sexist jab. While the etymological origins of this word are, in fact, gender-specific, it was obvious to anyone who read my post that no such reference was intended. In a comment posted back to Ravitch's blog I called it a "cheap, intellectually lazy shot." And indeed, I think it is.
I've recently been reading Jonah Goldberg's witty and cutting new book, The Tyrrany of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. Goldberg explores the myriad ways some people avoid having real debates by throwing out meaningless cliches that sound smart but are really diversions from actually taking your opponent's ideas seriously. My ensuing squabble with commenters over the word "hysteria" brought Goldberg's book to mind.
But the truth is, liberals aren't the only ones who take short-cuts or circumvent real discussions by using provocative and hyperbolic words, and I believe I made this error myself several times in my blog post, including my use of the word "hysterical."
Several of Ravitch's thoughtful readers challenged me to think to more carefully about the Orwellian implications of using the Galvanic Response Skin bracelets to measure such deeply personal data. Some noted the endlessly-creeping influence of the government in all aspects of our lives, and the tendency (which I did, in fact, note in my original post) of school leaders to misuse student data in countless ways, continually transferring living, breathing children into numbers that can be crunched and analyzed, and ultimately used to evaluate teacher or school effectiveness.
There are several ironies present here. First, anyone who knows me well at all can attest to my political leanings, which are decidedly libertarian and anti-authoritarian. I passionately share my interlocutors' concerns about all of these breaches of privacy and our creepy tendency in education to (poorly) measure everything. (Read my blog post from last week, and from a few months back, condemning the utter lack of instructional sensitivity in standardized testing). I am a strong advocate for standards-based assessment of student learning, and believe passionately in non-traditional, student-centered approaches to education like Montessori.
So I share all of my colleagues' concerns, including Professor Ravitch's, about all these things. That concern should have led me to characterize their response to the Gates research as an over-reaction, and not "hysteria." I overstated myself for rhetorical purposes and wound up mischaracterizing the feelings of the people I was describing.
But I do believe outright opposition to this Gates project is an overreaction. Yes, gathering biosensory data on children is disconcerting and has lots of possible implications we do not want. And yet, I do not find this reason to condemn such data-gathering outright. Professionally, I'm curious to see what they find out. When it comes to application of their findings, then there will be plenty of reason to discuss and debate.
I actually think what provoked the most ire in what I wrote was my description of Diane Ravitch as a defender of the educational "status quo." I did this both in the blog post title and in the text.
And this, to be fair, is also a mischaracterization of Diane, her work, and her beliefs, and one that I regret. Ravitch is an ardent opponent of our industry's obsession with standardized testing, which is as much a part of the educational status quo as anything. As noted above, I share her concerns about this policy trend in education, and I apologize for confusing Diane's resistance to "measurement mania" with her opposition to school choice.
Because it's on this topic that Ravitch is most definitely on the side of the status quo. I am certain she has good intentions and believes wholeheartedly that she is fighting for what's best in education, but I find her writing to reflect a real misunderstanding of both the goals and methods of school choice advocates and of the philosophy and practical policy applications of expanding educational options. My disagreement with Diane on this count is deep, but it is professional, and not personal.
I am grateful to Diane's readers for engaging with me on all of these issues. I am zealous about fighting for an educational philosophy and practice which I believe is best for American children, but I must resist the tendency to turn others into straw men (and women) for purposes of making my point.
In my day job, I spend most of my time training teachers who aspire to become effective school administrators. One of the things I emphasize regularly is the need to become more self-reflective, and to be authentic and vulnerable in your leadership, seeking greater compassion and understanding toward self and others in all our professional pursuits. These contemplative dimensions of leadership are long-neglected in the world of school administration, and I believe hold the key toward creating healthier, happier, and ultimately more effective schools.
In that spirit, I acknowledge my own growth areas as an educator and a communicator, and commit to a more contemplative approach as I continue to teach, write, and argue for better schools.
Comments