Before the test-driven, competition-driven school reform movement, educators had plenty of issues to argue over. We didn’t face nearly as many controversies that we had to fight over. Educators might occasionally express our opinions in an intemperate manner, but our disputes were no more divisive than the debates in other professions.

Some of our most forceful advocates have long claimed that education’s normative culture was so permissive that it could kill public schools. But, those jeremiads were largely rhetorical. Dissenters might be so livid about the allegedly progressive views that supposedly made us soft-headed that they would threaten to take their ball and go home. But, rarely would they become so angry that they would actually promote the destruction of public education and our values regarding the free exchange of ideas.

Over the last generation, however, persons who believe that the education “status quo” is too progressive, too soft-hearted, and too slow to shut down debates have often committed to the corporate reform ideology. Because of the claim that school systems are so irreparably broken, the accountability-driven movement has a twenty-year record of taking dramatic action, mandating top-down “transformative” reforms, and then considering the evidence afterwards. They’ve consciously and openly set out to destroy that status quo in the faith that “disruptive innovation” will magically replace the old system that was supposedly too rooted in progressivism.

A discussion in the Teacher’s Lounge recalls the debates of the pre-reform years. I read it as an illustration of what was and what remains good about the education culture that is now derided as the status quo.  It also offers insights into why some independent-minded educators, having failed to persuade the majority of their colleagues that they have a monopoly on the truth, turned to market-driven reform in order destroy the school cultures that they found wanting.

Henry Svec asked for teachers’ thoughts about throwing a pizza party for middle school students who get an A, but excluding those who do not reach that level. He hit a nerve and the question apparently prompted more than 1,200 responses. A wide variety of differing opinions were expressed, but Svec may be the only debater who believed that those who disagree with him are mortal enemies of public education.

The discourse over rewarding and punishing student performance started with examinations of the merits of external versus intrinsic motivation for learning and it led to an extended debate over the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) program (which is an increasingly popular approach for replacing suspensions to maintain order in schools). The exchange brought in consultants, as well as practitioners. Most posters seemed to embrace “shades of gray,” or nuanced ways to increase the benefits or reduce the unintended harm incentives and disincentives.

Some posters (like me) remain committed to authentic instruction and focusing on the joy of learning. We stressed the importance of teaching students to be inner-directed.  At the risk of being called “progressive,” we resisted behavioristic shortcuts that undermine the nurturing of internal loci of control.

Others, who seemed to represent the majority views, believed in grading as the appropriate accountability system. The grade, itself, might be seen as the reward. These educators speculated about ways of grading on a curve or developing better grading practices. Many of these teachers seemed to embrace differentiated instruction and a nuanced system of rewards and punishment. Often they sought ways to reward entire classes. The number of posters who endorsed PBIS’s incentives seemed to be comparable to those who complained about the system’s flaws. For what its worth, the posts for and against PBIS reinforced my suspicions of that program.

Of course, the issue of high stakes testing informed the entire exchange. There was a reasoned disagreement over the role of teachers in addressing the stress caused by testing. It was argued, for instance, that it may be wrong that students must endure high stakes testing, but life is full of stress and students shouldn’t be shielded from it. Others viewed the test-driven, competition-driven ethos as “reprehensible.” Few or none of the posters defended the test, sort, reward, and punish mania of the last 15 years or so.

My position is that some students and some parents like grading, competition, incentives, and disincentives, and teachers should respect that. If families choose schools that employ behaviorist pedagogies and discipline, so be it. I believe we need more pizza parties for all but not as extrinsic rewards. I have concerns about teachers contributing to practices that encourage other-directedness, but nobody made me the king of the education universe.

Especially in the schools that I know, high schools, we should let the students choose; the kids can decide whether they learn best in classes that depend on metrics, grades, rewards and sanctions, or whether they prefer to focus on personal responsibility and the love of learning. I would save the word “reprehensible” for institutionalized efforts such as holding pep assemblies to juice up students for increasing test scores, or indoctrinating adults to the point where they freak out when they discover 3rd graders watching a Disney movie before their high-stakes reading test.

I disagreed with many of the posters, but I sure wasn’t offended by many of their positions. Svec, however, concluded that “teachers primarily believe that competition and external rewards are a bad thing.” He blames this value system on education schools. Svec equated the pursuit of excellence with competition, and he dismissed those who disagreed as “entitled.” He predicted that this “collective group think” will result in private schools taking over and allowing children to follow a “path of greatness.”

Over the last couple of decades, a few educators have grown so agitated about the alleged wasting of time on debate that they have joined the market-driven reformers who sought to destroy the school cultures they found so wanting.  But, as a career-changer (being a former historian), I have been impressed by my adopted profession. Reading the extended Teacher Lounge discussion made me long for the days when teachers could engage in a thoughtful discourse, with our professional wisdom not being supervised by the non-educators known as corporate reformers.

What do you think? If we don’t have the time to discuss policies in advance, when will we have the time to fix hurried poorly-conceived experiments? Besides, what is so bad about the exchange of ideas?