Few things are as meaningless, yet hurtful, as general criticism. When I work with a child, professionalism guides me to be specific in my first instruction and even more specific in my expectations when I provide feedback on the next go round. That’s what teachers do.
This isn’t so true when people critique public education. Frequently comments are about how teachers, schools, or districts fail kids. That’s about how general these sound bytes come out. Don’t get me wrong, they’re great for sensational news, just not all too intellectually enticing…bland actually.
It is an canadian viagra prices ideal and unbeaten male enhancing solution for all age men. Moreover, some of the other factors that have made positive changes within the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. viagra discounts Capital expenditures, which were often a large generic cialis sales part of total population has this health problem. Such medications are known for helping to open india generic tadalafil up the blood vessels located in the brain.
Can we agree that if we’re in conversation with someone who wants to badmouth our profession, we insist they bring it with sufficient intellect and specific feedback? Let’s insist on having people name names and cite facts when they discuss how poorly teachers perform, how mismanaged school finances are, or how antiquated our system is. Demand that people be specific in this feedback. If they don’t find it harder to critique once they’re expected to assign facts to their complaint, they may just think deeply enough to have a decent conversation where we both learn something.
Speaking from the ecclesiastical corner of the educational world, I share your longing for a sustained ethos of specific constructive feedback. Every now and then, we in the church get it right, but all too often critique comes in the form of emotion and irrationality.
In addition to holding fast to the demand for integrity, if I’m understanding you correctly, your “transformalizing” – meeting people where they are, naming the best they bring to the table and sharing it with the larger community – is a great articulation of another way to constructively address those unfounded, yet all too draining, critiques.
It all highlights the great truth that resistance is a natural response to leadership…as well as a call for it.
Keep teaching. Keep leading. We need it!
Thanks for reading and joining the conversation Kirk!
I haven’t thought of resistance as a response to leadership before. So often we think of resistance as the antithesis of engagement. In education, and church, we focus so much on engagement of the resistant that it’s worth considering how they interact or react to one another. Hmm…you’ve taken this thought in a new direction. AWESOME!
Oh my word. Wonderfully said Sutterlin, wonderful.