Skeptics and Cynics
One demands evidence before embracing change, while the other resists it at all cost. Here’s why you should listen to the skeptics and avoid the cynics when making crucial decisions
By Douglas B. Reeves
October 2011
Resistance to change is part of the change process. If school leaders do not face some resistance to innovative practices, then leaders are not really attempting to engage in meaningful reform. Change in any system means a loss of previously accepted practices and challenges to prevailing wisdom. Because loss and challenge are painful experiences, resistance is inevitable.
However, board members and leaders should distinguish between skeptics— resisters who demand evidence before accepting change—and cynics, for whom no amount of evidence is ever acceptable. Both sources of resistance can appear to be similar, but wise leaders will value the skeptics and banish the cynics.
SKEPTICS: SHOW ME THE PROOF!
Skeptics often have sound reasons to doubt the claims of education reformers. They have seen one program after another, accompanied by dubious claims that “research shows” the new idea would work miracles, only to find that the research was little more than a claim from a podium.
Skeptics have learned to cast doubt on even the most widely accepted educational orthodoxies, such as the prevailing belief that students have a “learning style” to which teachers should adapt their instruction. Daniel Willingham, a University of Virginia professor, does an exceptional job of challenging such conventional wisdom.
Skeptics challenge the prevailing claim that handwriting is a skill rendered obsolete by 21st century technology, particularly after they read the research of Professor Steve Graham, which provides compelling evidence that it remains essential for students.
Skeptics are also weary of extreme arguments, ranging from those who believe that poverty is not a relevant factor in determining student achievement to those who claim that social factors are so overwhelming that success in high- poverty schools is impossible. They prefer nuance and balance, such as the work of John Hattie, which acknowledges that poverty profoundly influences achievement and, at the same time, certain leadership and teaching factors are even more influential than student socioeconomic factors.
In sum, skeptics are the Galileos of education reform, demanding that evidence trump assertion even when assertions are backed by authority. Board members and educational leaders should value the role skeptics play in helping us to forge policy in the crucible of data and systematic analysis.
NEVER ENOUGH
Cynics can appear, at first glance, to be similar to skeptics, as both show little enthusiasm for the reform of the day. Nevertheless, the differences between skeptics and cynics are profound.
While the skeptic demands evidence, the cynic finds no evidence sufficient for change. While the skeptic can be per- suaded, however reluctantly, with data and analysis, the cynic’s mind is made up before the argument begins, impervious to any rationale.
Consider the contrasting reactions to evidence that incentives for good and timely student work are more effective than punishment for work that is late and poorly done. In one urban district, these policies led to pass rates in high school science that rose from 36 percent in the first year to 92 percent two years later. The skeptic will conclude that such an improvement in performance is worthy of replication; the cynic will say, “Only 92 percent—I told you that this wouldn’t work for every kid!”
Skeptics rationally observe the 56 percent of students who were saved from failure; cynics focus on the 8 percent who were lost. Skeptics challenge us to provide evidence that alternative policies are significantly better than the present; cynics challenge us to provide evidence that alternative policies are perfect.
By that standard, no policy, no alternative, no progress is ever sufficient.
ENGAGE SKEPTICS BAN CYNICS
During meetings, board members listen patiently to skeptics, cynics, and anyone else with an opinion. Superintendents and school leaders, however, must have strategic responses to opposition to essential changes in teaching and leadership policy. They should engage skeptics, encouraging action research and systematic analysis of the evidence.
Skeptics want to be effective educators and seek evidence to support or oppose proposed new policies. Cynics are uninterested in inquiry or research, as their personal beliefs prevail over evi- dence. In some cases, cynics can disrupt faculty meetings and professional devel- opment experiences, shooting down new ideas with the enthusiasm of a 13-year-old destroying aliens in a video game.
I would propose that administrators approach the cynics with the following proposition: “It’s quite clear that you do not want to engage in discussion or learn- ing, so I have prepared a list of alternate duties that you can perform during our next meeting. Which one would you like to do?”
This remedy may sound extreme, but it’s necessary. Cynics are toxic, harming the morale of their colleagues and disrupting the professional learning environment. The irrational heckling from cynics demonstrates the folly of the contention that faculty members need only to “hear the message” to support a change initiative.
Administrators who ban cynics are not intolerant of dissent. They engage and honor skeptics, making clear that the best leaders value dissent that is rooted in rational skepticism and open-minded inquiry. What leaders need not tolerate is the irrational, disruptive, and intolerant view of cynics who threaten to derail essential school reforms.
While the skeptic is the Galileo of education reform, elevating evidence as the standard for decision, the cynic is the Inquisition of policymaking, where pre-conceived belief trumps evidence. Harvard professor Richard Elmore insists that we ask in response to every assertion, “What is the evidence to support the claim that you have made?” The willingness to ask and answer that trenchant question is what separates the skeptic from the cynic.