Daniel Willingham--Science & Education
Hypothesis non fingo
  • Home
  • About
  • Books
  • Articles
  • Op-eds
  • Videos
  • Learning Styles FAQ
  • Daniel Willingham: Science and Education Blog

Your edupolicy adversaries: they're not evil and you don't know what they think.

10/2/2012

 
Passions run high in education debates because the stakes are high. When passions run high, name-calling is usually not far behind. I appreciate a good taunt as much as the next person (unless the next person is this guy)
Picture
but when the taunts go too far, or when they constitute most of a blog post, the most valuable audience--those who disagree with your or who are unsure--stop listening.

I think it's fair to say that, in education policy, some of us have gone too far. People who disagree with us are depicted as not merely wrong, but evil.

This characterization is most noticeable in the what is broadly called the reform movement.

People who advocate reforms such as merit pay, the use of value added models of teacher evaluation, charter schools, and vouchers are not merely labeled misguided because these reforms won't work. They are depicted as bad people who are unsympathetic to the difficulty of teaching and who are in the pockets of the rich.

Likewise, those who see value in teacher's unions, who are leery of current methods of teacher evaluation, who think that vouchers threaten the neighborhood character of schools are not merely wrong: they are accused of looking out for the welfare of lousy teachers.

And of course both sides are accused of "not caring about kids."

Why am I bringing all this up on a blog called "Science and Education?" Because studies of ingroup and outgroup thinking show that people who disagree with us are seen as immoral.

A recent study (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007) evaluated three dimensions of ingroup status: sociability, competence, and morality. They reported that we like groups we are a part of and think the group is special because it is moral. The most important reason that we deem our group superior to other groups is not that we are smarter or more likeable; we are on the side of right.

Another comforting fiction: we think that we know what people on the other side of an issue would say, or how they would behave.

For example, one study from the 1990's (Robinson, Keltner, Ward & Ross, 1995) investigated the reactions of liberals and conservatives to the Howard Beach incident: a young Black man was struck and killed by a car as he was running away from a group of White pursuers in the Howard Beach neighborhood of New York City. After reading a synopsis of the incident, subjects were asked a series of questions meant to probe what they thought about (1) who was responsible for the death (2) the role of race in the incident, (3) the severity of the criminal sentences for the White teens.

Subjects were also asked to judge how liberals and conservatives would answer these questions.
The findings showed two things: (1) we think that we are more logical and less influenced by ideology than others are; (2) we think that our group is less influenced by ideology than other groups are.

In sum, we think that people who agree with us are moral, and people who disagree with us, less so. Further, we think that we know how other people will interpret complicated situations--they will driven more by ideology than by facts.

Of all the bloggers, pundits, reporters, researchers, etc. I know, I can think of two who I would say are mean-spirited--both of them unrelentingly vitriolic, I'm guessing in some wretched effort to resolve personal disappointments.

Of the remaining hundreds, all give every evidence of sincerity and of genuine passion for education.

So this is a call for fewer blog postings that, implicitly or explicitly,  denigrate the other person's motives, or that offer a knowing nod with the claim "we all know what those people think."

It may be a natural bias, but it makes for a boring read.





Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (versus competence and sociability) in the positive
evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93, 234–279.

Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: "Naive Realism" in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 404-417.
Paul Thomas link
10/2/2012 01:32:30 am

If the education reform debate were contested between two experienced and credible sides (such as how arguments are between and among scholars in many academic fields), then this blog post would be powerfully important.

The problem is that the education reform debate is among one group of powerful and influential reformers (Obama/Duncan, Gates, Rhee, et al.) who are essentially without experience or expertise in the field of education and educators/researchers who have experience and expertise but no power or money.

That's a caustic dynamic—one which requires educators/scholars to highlight the lack of credibility among the reformers and often leads to posts like this misrepresenting how the debate is being framed.

Fiona
10/3/2012 11:12:30 pm

Absolutely dead on. Succinctly stated.

Roger Sweeny
10/7/2012 04:06:53 am

Did Dan pay you two to provide an example of just how right he is?

I'm kind of hoping that further down the comments there is someone making the equally wrong argument that we shouldn't listen to anti-reformers because they are selfish people with big stakes in the existing system. It would make for a nice symmetry.

Lynn Guelzow
10/2/2012 01:42:38 am

Thanks, Daniel. I think this is the best blog post I've read in the education world in a very long time. You've explained exactly why I've reduced my involvement on the internet in education policy decisions. I know a great many wonderful people that are teachers and a great many people that are reformers. None of these people are immoral or evil, despite reaching different conclusions about what would be best for education.

Paul Hoss
10/2/2012 05:07:45 am

Great post, Dan. It helps explain some of the unnecessary ad hominem which seems to appear regularly on certain blogs. The Answer Sheet from the Washington Post and Bridging Differences from Education Week are two classic examples. Of course it takes two to argue/tango but the absolute rudeness and lack of tact add to the negativity on both of these blogs. There appears to be little to no respect for any form of opposing opinion, as in my way or the highway mindsets. Of course I've never been guilty of these types of exchanges but every now and then it's nice to dream.

Michael M Bishop link
10/2/2012 05:20:44 am

You identify an important problem and I wish people would take your advice, but I fear that people enjoy politics more than they enjoy science and policy. This means that blogs which polarize are likely to remain more prominent.

Alexander
10/2/2012 05:20:54 am

Interesting post. However, there are many problematic aspects here. Here is just a small selection,

First of all, given how the author argues that evil and subjective are relative terms, how can he also argue that one's opposition is not evil or immoral? Doesn't that depend on which side you ask? People get riled up about education reform because there is a great deal at stake, and it makes perfect sense that they feel passionately about their stances. Telling people to calm down because their opposition is not evil misses the point.

Second, ideology is not merely a blind force that determines one's actions. It is also a reflection of one's life experiences and the outcomes of reasoning based on those experiences. How is that out of place in an education debate?

That being said, it is not exactly true that you can't predict the opposition's stance. Sometimes you can't, but often times you can, in large part because the education debate is tied in with the political process, where parties and interest groups, whose stances and programs are widely known, weigh in at every stage. I agree that you can't know what a person thinks in the absolute sense, us being separate beings and all that, but so what? One's stance is much more easily read.

In addition, there is nothing in the blog about the institutional ties between lobbies that support teacher "merit pay", voucher programs, etc., and those that support teaching creationism, abstinence-only "sex ed," deny the existence of global warming, etc. On the other side, there are significant ties between liberal teachers and politicians who support marriage, gender, racial and other types of equality, and other social-justice based causes that drive many conservatives nuts. Again, is it any wonder that there seems to be so little room for compromise? Arguing for greater civility in the education debate is one thing, but citing two studies and drawing fundamentally significant conclusions from them is more than oversimplifying the issue; it borders on trivializing the issues.

Anthony Cody link
10/2/2012 06:00:21 am

Daniel,
I wrote a response in the form of a blog post, which can be found here:http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/10/can_we_exorcize_evil_from_the_.html
Anthony

Darrell Rudmann
10/2/2012 06:57:56 am

Reframing the high profile attempts to privatize public education as a matter of in-group/out-group bias is odd. You don't see any parallels between what is happening in educational policy and the problems that result in the corporate funding of medical and scientific research?

I have not read any talk of the well-financed ed reformers as "evil." They are simply paid to be biased, promoting unproven high-stakes approaches to education for profit, often to the detriment of social equality. It's not terribly hard to understand. Follow the money.

r
10/7/2012 04:10:38 am

<i>They are simply paid to be biased, promoting unproven high-stakes approaches to education for profit, often to the detriment of social equality.</i>

Seems to me you're accusing them of being evil.

Jason Glass link
10/2/2012 09:34:29 am

Appreciate the balance and the message. We all love our children and want better schools. Let's work to get past the emotion and name calling and get to some pragmatic and thoughtful discussions about what works.

Douglas Hainline
10/2/2012 10:46:38 am

It's amusing to see how many of the comments here illustrate the very problem that Daniel Willingham is trying to highlight.

(1) There are very few controversial political issues which do not also engage groups with strong material self-interests on both sides. So it is easy to denounce your opponents as being motivated by their pocketbooks ... because some of them will indeed have pocketbooks which will be affected by the issue. Once you have noted this, you must then engage with their ideas.

(2) In the field of education, above all others, do not be overly-influenced by what the "educators and researchers" tell you. This field is full of ideological dogmatists who have an essentially religious confidence in their beliefs, but who are only reflecting the malign influence of the chowder-heads of the Flower Power generation. The Argument-from-Authority is especially suspect when the so-called Authorities are confirming EdSchool pieties.

Professor Willingham's blog and books are a refreshing exception to the rule.

(3) Having said (2), I would then argue that educational reform should not be a liberal/conservative issue. Look for allies in the "enemy camp". If you support effective (phonics-based) reading instruction, and want kids to memorize their times tables, I'll be your ally, even if your motivation is to have them be able to read Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and to be able to calculate the terrible (of course, purely racism-based) disparity in ethnic crime rates.

Rachel
10/2/2012 03:37:14 pm

Douglas -- I'm assuming you meant to be ironical pointing out how many of the comments highlighted Daniel's points, and a few sentences later refer to the "malign influence of the chowder-heads of the Flower Power generation"?

Douglas Hainline
10/2/2012 06:31:04 pm

Rachel: Well-observed! But as Oscar Wilde noted, 'Consistency is
the last refuge of the unimaginative.'

Karl Wheatley
10/3/2012 05:51:09 pm

Since I study education myths, phonics is an interesting one.

There is no question that phonics drill and practice works better in the short run for low-level gains in reading subskills (which is what dominates "reading achievement tests").

However, in the long run, whole language is just as effective for comprehension, works better for writing and student attitudes, allows children to continue to learn science and social studies simultaneously, and generally supports practices that have many highly valued advantages (e.g., greater creativity) over traditional instruction.

This is why Reading First didn't work, and a closer look at the study-by-study analysis shows how the National Reading Panel went wrong (see Coles, 2003).

Part of why we fight in education is often because some people are focused on what's narrowly effective in the short term (Phonics, flashcards / fad diets), while others are focused on what's more broadly effective in the long run (whole language, project-based learning, play / lifestyle changes).

Of course phonics and fad diets work faster in the short run for easily quantifiable gains: They just happen to be broadly counterproductive in the long run for the goals we value most.

Douglas Hainline
10/6/2012 05:06:38 pm

Karl: Could you expand on the (Coles, 2000) reference, with perhaps a title and, if possible, a source. I would like to read it. And do you think that the phenomenon of focussing on short-term at the expense of long-term effects you see in teaching reading by phonics, also applies in other subjects? Would you favor children learning dates in history, or memorizing times tables and other mathematical facts, or do you think that this approach necessarily stifles creativity, etc.?

Karen Mahon link
10/4/2012 05:20:40 am

Great post, Daniel. I have often heard it said that we shouldn't question each other's motives, just our methods. I do agree that everyone in the debate cares about kids. I don't agree with some of the earlier comments that all of those who are in the so-called "reform movement" don't know anything about education. There are diverse groups on both sides of the debate. At the 60,000 foot view, it seems to me that the biggest difference between the two groups is about measuring effectiveness of instruction via student learning outcomes. The "reform" side of the debate is inclined to measure and have accountability; the non-reformers are inclined to say that the "truly" important stuff can't be measured. This is my general interpretation of a VAST number of arguments, articles, speeches, etc. But for me, as a scientist, it is fascinating. Thanks for the opportunity to participate.
www.karenmahon.com

PL
10/6/2012 09:42:39 am

Excellent post. Much appreciated.

I can guess your 2 vitriolic bloggers. I'd add one more.

This new blog is unusual in that it's *explicitly* devoted to the type of castigation you describe. Vitriol is an overt communications strategy, not some sort of personal excess.

http://edushyster.com/

Funded by AFT.

Douglas Hainline
10/6/2012 04:08:18 pm

Karl: could you expand the (Coles, 2003) reference to include a title and possibly a source? I would be interested in reading it. Is your committment to Whole Language as opposed to Phonics part of a more general outlook on education? For instance, do you think that having children memorize times tables and other low-level mathematical facts hurts their creativity in mathematics?

Darin Schmidt
10/19/2012 01:55:23 pm

The most important point is in Dan's first paragraph. If your target audience shuts you out, you're not communicating. If you are preaching to the choir, you're wasting valuable oxygen. Get out of the echo chamber.

oldandrew link
10/29/2012 05:41:31 pm

I wondered if you had come across the controversy over Jo Boaler's work, particularly this attack she made on her critics:

http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/

Dan Willingham
10/29/2012 10:40:55 pm

this is new to me.

Doug1943
10/30/2012 12:14:38 pm

For those who are interested in this controversy, here are some useful links:

A summary of the dispute, by two Australian mathematicians:
http://education.theage.com.au/cmspage.php?intid=147&intversion=141

Another summary, from Inside HigherEd
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/15/stanford-professor-goes-public-attacks-over-her-math-education-research

The paper which critiques Boaler's work:
ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/combined-evaluations-version3.pdf

I would like to add a link to a freely-downloadable copy of Boaler's original paper, which was available a couple of years ago, but I haven't been able to find one now.

Dan Willingham
10/31/2012 03:35:00 am

Thanks Doug1943, very interesting.


Comments are closed.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed


    Purpose

    The goal of this blog is to provide pointers to scientific findings that are applicable to education that I think ought to receive more attention.

    Archives

    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    December 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012

    Categories

    All
    21st Century Skills
    Academic Achievement
    Academic Achievement
    Achievement Gap
    Adhd
    Aera
    Animal Subjects
    Attention
    Book Review
    Charter Schools
    Child Development
    Classroom Time
    College
    Consciousness
    Curriculum
    Data Trustworthiness
    Education Schools
    Emotion
    Equality
    Exercise
    Expertise
    Forfun
    Gaming
    Gender
    Grades
    Higher Ed
    Homework
    Instructional Materials
    Intelligence
    International Comparisons
    Interventions
    Low Achievement
    Math
    Memory
    Meta Analysis
    Meta-analysis
    Metacognition
    Morality
    Motor Skill
    Multitasking
    Music
    Neuroscience
    Obituaries
    Parents
    Perception
    Phonological Awareness
    Plagiarism
    Politics
    Poverty
    Preschool
    Principals
    Prior Knowledge
    Problem-solving
    Reading
    Research
    Science
    Self-concept
    Self Control
    Self-control
    Sleep
    Socioeconomic Status
    Spatial Skills
    Standardized Tests
    Stereotypes
    Stress
    Teacher Evaluation
    Teaching
    Technology
    Value-added
    Vocabulary
    Working Memory