Balance, not division. Compassion, not attack. Conversation, not war.

Compassion is not a relationship between the healer and the wounded. It’s a relationship between equals. Only when we know our own darkness well can we be present with the darkness of others. Compassion becomes real when we recognize our shared humanity. ~ Pema Chödrön

by @debsnet

Often I am struck by argumentative battles in traditional media, on social media and around the blogosphere. I appreciate those writers, commentators and educators who share their musings, experiences, readings, and perspectives, without using divisive loaded language or attack. I think the rantiest I have gotten was this post on the APPR reforms in New York and this one around whether teachers can be researchers, but I attempted to frame my criticism through making transparent my perspective and asking clarifying questions. Balance.

I have written a lot about my school’s coaching model, as it is kind of my baby and it’s something which I think is worth sharing; others might gain from hearing our story. Yet this coaching model is not stand alone. It is not as though teachers at my school are only coached by teacher-coaches in a non-evaluative, non-hierarchical model. In their first year at the school, teachers participate in a rigorous evaluative permanency process. Every year they have a conversation with their line manager, who touches base with them on their work, goals and classroom practice. Every third year, teachers have their coaching cycle with their manager. This is more evaluative and performative by its nature, and by the nature of the relationship. Teachers additionally work with instructional consultants. Leaders work with coaches. Professional learning community teams and action research projects work alongside. Growth and evaluation. Balance.

I have written about the creative things I trial in my classroom like a term without grades and genius hour for students and teachers. These are things at the experimental end of the spectrum of what happens in my lessons, so I share them as stories of experience and part of a conversation. I do these things to develop engagement of my often-reluctant high school English students, to build their self-efficacy and to help them learn to rely on themselves as drivers of learning, rather than entirely on me as Teacher with a capital T.

Does that mean I don’t use explicit instruction? Of course not! I explicitly teach concepts, skills and texts, although I temper this with encouraging students to do their own thinking and to trust their own thinking, rather than expecting that I can fill them, as vessels, with the answers. What are the ideas of the text? What interpretations might be drawn? Answers can come from me or from Spark Notes, but if I do my job properly, students will have the skills, understandings, language and cognitive capacity to draw their own interpretations, from their own contexts, and justify these using logic and evidence. The best student responses comprise original thinking, not regurgitated knowledge. The best teachers focus not just on effective learning (our core business, of course!) but developing learners and passion for consuming, curating and creating knowledge.

In my Head of English roles at three schools I have ensured a balance between explicit instruction and those strategies which propel love of reading, power in writing and deep intellectual engagement in ideas and discussion. Interestingly, Charlotte Danielson’s heavily-researched Framework for Teaching has its ‘proficient’ descriptors describing teaching which is expertly directed by the teacher, and its ‘distinguished’ teaching descriptors outlining lessons in which students are taking responsibility for their own learning and behaviour. Creative and explicit. Balance.

I have written about lyrical metaphors for PhD study, and only occasionally about the unsexy logistics of what the graft actually looks like. My conceptual framework draws in part from fictional literature. Does this mean my PhD is devoid of hard, critical, scientific work? No. My PhD is of course the result of the logical, systematic working through of literature, data and research problems. When writing the Limitations section in the conclusion of my thesis I was highly aware that all research has its limitations. Extensive quantitative data can show us patterns and effects, but these may be faceless. Qualitative data can drill down deep into the messy humanness of lived experience which may be unrepresentative of wider groups and therefore not generalizable. Yet each study adds its tiny piece of understanding to the layers of what is known. Research is conversation. Imaginative and systematic. Broad and deep. Balance.

I would love to use the line ‘I’m a lover not a fighter’ but I think I’m both. I believe in sharing and celebrating our stories, but I will advocate fiercely for my students, fight for what I believe is right and argue for my research. Balance.

From a history of my posts, it is probably clear that I am seduced by the lyrical, by storytelling, by creative approaches and by metaphor. Yet I am not one dimensional. Nor is my teaching, my thinking, my researching or my living. Balance.

I came across this excellent recent TED talk from Jon Ronson on the way social media has moved from giving voices to the voiceless, to an angry mob mentality of shaming and abuse, in which people seem to forget compassion and morality.

While I love robust discussions which take us out of the echo chamber of we-all-agree-high-fiving, I also think we need to approach these with compassion, thoughtfulness and a view of each other as human beings. We can disrupt with respect. We can disagree gracefully. We can advocate with civility. (And if you throw in a metaphor, you’ll totally have me!)

by @debsnet

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Balance, not division. Compassion, not attack. Conversation, not war.

  1. I think balance can be a challenge whether online or off. You have reminded me of an incident a few years back when there was a piece published in The Age about the failure of education. It brought everyone out. Made me wonder about the limitations of tribes (readwriterespond.com/?p=113).
    Must go and watch Ronson’s video. Been much talked about of late.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Aaron.
      I agree that balance is tricky. Especially when we are emotional or defending our world view! Thanks for your feedback.
      Near the end of Ronson’s clip he says that the damage on individuals isn’t as bad when there is a babble of disagreeing voices, rather than an uncontested pack.
      Deb

      Like

  2. I don’t wholly agree with some of your points (for example, I am very sceptical about ‘genius hour’), but I do very much agree with the notion of balancing evidence and ideologies. The reality is that our habits and beliefs are so entrenched, based on our experience, that we rarely deviate from our original position and we rarely respond to bombast or argument. It is only nuanced debate and healthy challenge that *may* tweak and adjusts our beliefs and our habits.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Alex, for gracefully disagreeing! That’s the whole point isn’t it?

      Genius hour isn’t an evidence based practice but I’ve been trialling it on occasion in adapted ways to see how it works with engaging my students and helping them to dig into texts and express their understanding in their own ways.

      Your notion of nuanced debate and healthy challenge is a great one. It accepts that we look at the complexities of teaching and see challenge as a way forward together.

      I think our beliefs need to change before we change our behaviours, and that has been my experience in my own practice and my research.

      Thanks for commenting!

      Deb

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: Disrupting disruption in business, academia & education? | the édu flâneuse

  4. I think balance can be mistaken for blandness or sitting on the fence and the attention seekers provoke to fulfill their own needs. Fixed, binary notions of left/ right, right, wrong/ traditional/ progressive make for the least interesting conversations. Hesitate to use the ‘shades of grey’ analogy anymore, but something more diverse and colourful would be ideal.

    Like

  5. Pingback: Indra’s Net: We are all connected | the édu flâneuse

  6. Pingback: 5 things I learned in 2015 | the édu flâneuse

  7. Pingback: A “5 Whys” reflection on 2015 | transformative LEARNING

  8. Pingback: Traditional Progressivity or Progressive Traditionalism: Ditch the dichotomy | the édu flâneuse

  9. Pingback: Let’s not forget the magic and joy in reading | the édu flâneuse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s