When we use ‘either-or’, we are emphasising a choice between two alternatives. The expression is widely accepted in debates related to education. It makes it clear that the options in question cannot exist, or be achieved, at the same time.
A common and frequently reported ‘either-or’ situation relates to debates about the ‘phonics’ method and its value or otherwise in early reading instruction. This is often incorporated into the ‘back to basics’ debate. Another common issue is class size, where one side argues the positive or negative impacts on student outcomes, and the other argues the irrelevance or minimal impact of class size. And let’s not forget the ‘haves and have nots’ argument in the school funding debate.
Ideas and concepts are the true power behind progress, innovation, civil society and education.
To take the ‘either-or’ approach as a means of arguing or lobbying for any philosophy or outcome in education is cause for extreme concern. It implies that an idea or concept is wrong (or right) depending on which side you are sitting in the ‘either-or’ debate. It suggests there are winners and losers.
This couldn’t be further from the truth.
Ideas and concepts are the true power behind progress, innovation, civil society and education. Ideas and concepts offer us genuine platforms that give rise to robust debate, research and investment. Limiting ourselves to an ‘either-or’ approach leaves little room for the exercise of non-partisan agreement, fairness, independent thought or legitimate equal opportunity. We all lose.
If the ‘either-or’ agenda were to be removed from all education debate, and if, instead, ideas or philosophies were viewed through an optimistic transdisciplinary lens, what might education look like?
Perhaps, to begin, there would be a thorough investment in English – in its 26 symbols, their flexibility and their use. These symbols are the passport to independence, self-discipline, responsibility, and further education. The same can be said for numeracy and the principles associated with the numbers 1-10. Without the ability to use and understand these fundamental tools with an agreed degree of automaticity, our opportunities are limited and our dependency increases.
…‘basics’ require self-discipline, responsibility, independence and further education.
‘Back to basics’, or what might be better described as ‘moving forward with fundamentals’ is a necessary investment and enabler for the flexible use and access of everything else education offers. Class sizes, funding, the fight for equality, and any other ‘either-or’ can do little for the individual, the teacher, the student or civil society unless there is first a thorough investment in the English language.
Funnily enough, these ‘basics’ require self-discipline, responsibility, independence and further education. And, there’s no ‘either-or’ about that!
Copyright © 2018 Cheryl Lacey All rights reserved.
Parent, educationist, author, speaker and advocate of agitating change in Australian education. By raising the bar we can face any global challenges facing Australia and Australians.
I work with education leaders to become master learners and agents of change.
Contact me at cheryl@cheryllacey.com to learn how we can work together
If you’re looking for a thought provoking presenter or speaker for your next professional learning day or event, reach out.
cheryl@cheryllacey.com or +61 419 518 811
