A Search for Common Ground
Two scholars, with two perspectives, deliberate the big issues in K-12 education
Finding common ground on issues of K-12 education policy and practice is routinely a difficult task. Oftentimes, scholars, educators, and school leaders become so entrenched in their side of the argument on pressing issues that they are unwilling to affirm the merits of the other side. In this context, it is remarkable that Frederick Hess, director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Pedro Norguera, dean of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, managed to pull off precisely this task in their recent book, A Search for Common Ground: Conversations About the Toughest Questions in K-12 Education.
The book is a series of back-and-forth conversations between Hess, who identifies as on the political Right, and Norguera, who identifies as on the political Left, on some of the most hot-button debates in education. They touch on issues including: the purpose of schooling, testing, school choice, privatization, social–emotional learning, philanthropy, teacher pay, civics education, and diversity and equity. By openly discussing these fraught topics, they model constructive disagreement, demonstrating its attainability.
Hess and Norguera set out to better understand the origins of their disagreement. They claim that too often educators are told to have “courageous conversations,” but that there are too few of these in practice. Instead of preaching to the choir, which is an all-too-common approach of the political Left and Right, “courageous conversations require sitting down with those who see, think, and feel differently and then being willing to listen—not lecture.” They wrote the book to provide a model for how people with opposing views can “disagree with grace and explore differences without rancor.”
They chose to conduct their exchange through letter-writing because “there’s a unique power in that kind of deliberate, sustained exchange of ideas.” As such, they modeled their conversations after those between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson: “Founders of the two great political parties of their era, they fought furiously about foreign policy, commerce, faith, slavery, and much else. Yet they also engaged in an intimate correspondence that spanned decades.”
Hess and Norguera wrote the book for a variety of audiences working in the education sector, from teachers to policymakers. And for those who “understand that civil debate and principled disagreement are essential to a thriving democracy" and "appreciate that the future of this remarkable land will turn in large measure by what happens in our schools.”
Hess and Norguera described six elements that are essential for productive civil discourse and constructive disagreement: trust, openness, respect, courage, deliberation, and knowledge. In what follows, I describe how these elements made the exchange productive.
Trust and Transparency
Both Hess and Norguera felt that they could trust each other, which is key to engaging in courageous conversations on contentious issues. As Hess described, trust led to greater openness: “From one letter to the next, I could actually feel my trust growing. And I think the willingness to be transparent and open grew in turn.” Trust blossomed between the two because they avoided thinking in terms of winners and losers. They focused on the substance of the debate, rather than reading into the words or phrases used. And, as Hess noted, they didn’t engage in the popular tactic of relying on a singular exceptional case to undermine the other person’s position: “So many debates today are consumed with those on one side asking those on the other, ‘What about X?’—demanding endless explanations as to why they didn’t say this or denounce that.” Furthermore, once Hess or Norguera made a point or clarified a disagreement, they moved on, which allowed for exploration to continue and for agreement to take root.
Respect
Norguera indicated that his respect for Hess was one reason he agreed to engage in the exchange, and Hess shared that sentiment. Stating this explicitly, Norguera wrote to Hess: “Although I disagree with you on several of the topics we have explored, I still respect you.” Norguera went on to state that his appreciation for Hess stems from that fact that Hess bases his arguments on logic and facts, not ideology. He added that Hess presents evidence to make his case, listens to counterarguments (as shown throughout their exchanges), and changes his mind when the points presented by his opponents are valid.
Courage, Deliberation, and Knowledge
A certain level of courage is necessary to correspond with someone with whom you disagree over an extended period of time. The back-and-forth exchange, as Hess described, forced the pair to “stay with uncomfortable topics even when one of us might’ve preferred to move on. It allowed us to reflect and not just respond.” They couldn’t “simply settle for whatever quick quip or reflexive riposte leapt to mind.” Instead, Norguera and Hess had to sit down, read the take of the other, consider it, and then collect their thoughts before responding.
Norguera described his courage to engage in such an exchange as a result of confidence stemming from his knowledge about the topics: “I’m so confident about some of my views that I’m willing to readily engage and attempt to persuade those who disagree with me.” The confidence in knowledge that both Norguera and Hess possessed meant that they were prepared to defend their positions, and that they were aware of their blind spots, which allowed them to revise their position based on new information or a compelling perspective they had not previously considered.
Combined, trust, openness, respect, courage, deliberation, and knowledge cultivated the conditions under which constructive disagreement and seeking common ground were possible.
Arch of Finding Common Ground
Hess and Norguera begin each correspondence on the respective topic by restating the perspective of the other and acknowledging the validity of that perspective. Then they describe how their viewpoints diverge from one another and present evidence to justify their own position. Each conversation and method for seeking common ground followed a general arch. That is: I hear you. I understand your perspective. I agree with A, B, C assertion, but I disagree with X, Y, Z claim, and here is why. Defining terms was also an important component of the arch.
Defining Terms
The involvement of the private sector (non-profit and for-profit) in the delivery of educational services to public schools is one of the most contentious issues in K-12 education. As such, clearly defining the terms used to discuss the issue and conceding, when warranted, to the other side were essential factors that allowed Hess and Norguera to engage in constructive disagreement on this issue.
Hess is a proponent of non-profit and for-profit involvement in the provision of services. He begins the exchange on this topic by pointing out that the term “privatization” is often misused in education rhetoric. As such, he offers a definition of the term to ensure that he and Norguera are on the same page and not talking past each other:
“Privatization is ‘the transfer of a business, industry, or service from public to private ownership and control,’ if you don’t mind my quoting the Oxford Dictionary.”
The notion of “public” in public schools is another term which often needs clarification in debates about K-12 education. Hess articulated how their perspectives on “publicness” differ to help Norguera understand Hess’ own position:
“Where we see the issue of ‘publicness’ differently, I think, is in whether we should pursue our shared goals via uniform, publicly operated infrastructure.”
Ultimately, Norguera and Hess agree to disagree on the extent to which the private sector should be involved in the provision of public schools. But, by taking time to define terms and acknowledge barriers to the approaches they propose, they were able to clarify where they disagree and why.
Actively Seeking Common Ground
The topic of school choice was an issue on which they disagreed more than agreed and illustrates well how they approached their disagreements in a constructive manner. Norguera, for example, began an exchange by restating Hess’ (Rick) argument:
“Rick, you said that ‘all parents have a right to seek a safe, responsive learning environment for their child, whether or not they have resources.’”
After restating Hess’ argument, Norguera presents his perspective to explain why he disagrees:
“I say, there is no evidence that choice levels the playing field in any way that guarantees access for poor kids of color to go to better schools. Even if we concede that at least a third of charter schools are getting better test scores than comparable public schools, several studies have shown that charter schools are more likely to under-enroll the kids with the greatest needs, such as English learners, homeless students, or children in foster care.”
Hess responds in a similar manner. He first acknowledges a point of agreement:
“I do think that educational choices create winners and losers.”
Then he presents his argument for why he still believes school choice is important:
“But I also think the same is true of systems that restrict choice, denying some families the power and options enjoyed by others. The difference is that I believe choice helps yield more good opportunities for everyone—especially the kids ill-served by a lack of choice.”
Capitalizing on Agreement
On other issues, Hess and Norguera agree more than they disagree. In these instances, once agreement was established, they focused on solutions. Testing and accountability was one such issue. They both agree that schools should be accountable for serving students well and that testing has a vital role in shedding light on student outcomes but that problems arise when too much weight is put on reading and math tests.
Once this point of agreement was established, Norguera then goes on to ask, “What is the alternative?”
He proposes evaluating students using a portfolio, but Hess disagrees with this solution, following the arch for seeking common ground mentioned above:
“In theory, like you, I love the idea of portfolios. In practice, though, I can’t help but remember the research from Vermont in the late 1990s that found that there was no agreement from one teacher to another when they scored student portfolios. The grade depended almost entirely on who was grading it.”
In the end, they settled on “capacity building” for teachers as a solution to the problem of accountability because they both see this as a viable solution, but with the caveat that funds be spent wisely to achieve a well-defined goal.
Notably, in their testing and accountability exchange, a barrier to constructive disagreement was uncovered: Advocates for ideas or policies tend to double down, rather than revise their position, when evidence contrary to their position comes to light. Hess noted:
“I’m sure plenty of accountability hawks were legitimately shocked when analysts finally got around to documenting the staggering amount of time that schools were devoting to testing and test preparation. The backlash felt like a political dispute, with progressives blaming [No Child Left Behind] and conservatives the Common Core [State Standards]. The bigger story, though, was that after a sensible idea ran wild, the reformers who’d fought for testing got defensive when parents and teachers pushed back. An opportunity for constructive course corrections turned instead into an ugly melee.”
By finding common ground on an alternative solution to the problem with testing—building the capacity of teacher to evaluate students—Hess and Norguera successfully avoid this pitfall.
A Search for Common Ground can teach students and adults alike that civil debate is possible. By actively seeking common ground, acknowledging agreement, accepting disagreement, identifying solutions when possible, and prioritizing mutual understanding, Hess and Norguera demonstrate that constructive disagreement and finding common ground is achievable, even when discussing the most contentious issues. They listened to each other, took each other's ideas seriously, and, when it felt right, revised their position in light of new evidence or a new perspective. This is the goal of civil discourse, and it should be instilled in students of K-12 schools and institutions of higher education alike.