Sometimes we fail to say precisely what we mean. I suppose that this is sometimes due to the fact that whatever language we speak or write is constantly changing. Usually, I fear, it’s because we use language poorly, saying things we don’t really mean. More than half a century ago, George Orwell wrote:
But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take a drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. (1954, p. 163)
I often wonder whether people really mean or have thought much about what they say about educational achievement. What I see too often are ugly, inaccurate, slovenly statements that may reflect foolish thoughts (ugly in their irrationality; inaccurate in the message they are meant to convey; slovenly in ways we associate with linguistic incompetence).
Today, I read something in The Washington Post that prompted me to write this little essay. In an article about Washington, DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee, writer Bill Turque wrote (let’s consider this Exhibit A), “Rhee wants more teachers who share her central belief about education reform: All children can become high academic achievers, regardless of the disadvantages they face outside the classroom” (p. B1).
Now, regardless of who says such nonsensical things (whether Rhee or Turque or anyone else), I think such language is inexcusable. We’d be better off as educators, advocates for kids, and rational citizens interested in improving public education if instead the statement (or belief) were something along the lines of Exhibit B or Exhibit C. (I’m assuming that what I present as Exhibits B and C are close to what Rhee or Turque or others who say such things as Turque wrote might mean to say.) Exhibit B: “My central belief is that children can become high achievers regardless of the disadvantages they face outside the classroom.” Exhibit C: “Regardless of a child’s color or gender, religion, national origin, parentage, or socioeconomic level, he or she can become a high achiever.”
What’s the difference? Well, Exhibit A is statistically impossible (presumably, most people who say similarly irrational things know that but say them anyway because they don’t want to be perceived as biased against various groups and think the accuracy of their language isn’t really important). Are we expecting too much of ourselves and others if we demand rational statements? We recognize that someone who says, “My central belief is that we can all be rich” is a huckster. If we really care about education, then we’ll care enough to watch our mouths and our fingers, to avoid whenever possible saying or writing things that just don’t quite correspond to what most of us accept as reality, things that upon reflection make us the educational huckster.
Let’s all help each other use language more precisely. Let’s raise the bar for each other.
Orwell, G. (1954, original essay 1946). Politics and the English language. In A collection of essays by George Orwell (pp. 162-177). New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Turque, B. (2009, January 5). Rhee plans shake-up of teaching staff, training: Career development would change for those who remain. The Washington Post, B1, B6.
Maybe it should read, “Even children who do not have many advantages outside of school can learn successfully.”
John
Doesn’t the impossibility depend on the definition of “high achiever?” If one sets an absolute rather than a relative target couldn’t everyone, in principle, become a high achiever?
To be sure, Dan, one could set a pretty low bar. For everyone to be able to surmount it, though, it would have to be low enough to permit even individuals with pretty substantial disabilities to meet it. Of course, one might argue that individuals with such disabilities should not be counted in the statistics of “all” children reaching high levels of achievement. Even if one set a low bar and then declared that it only applied to some children, it would seem to me that educators who contend that all children can be high achievers probably should reconsider the meaning of their words.
But, I can’t speak (write) for Jim. Let’s see how he replies to your query.
Joining this conversation somewhat late, I may be guilty of belaboring the conversation a bit. However, I thought it may be relevant to examine the definition of the term “belief”. It seems that the argument put forth by Jim is with respect to the semantic interpretation of what essentially amounts to journalistic imprecision. While this (argument) may be relevant, it deserves perhaps an examination of intent as much as word choice..
belief. (from Merriam-Webster)
1. a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2. something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.
3. conviction of truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
In my mind, general statements such as the one in question come from a place of extended confidence (i.e., 1.) in the same way as one would say “there is someone out there for everyone”, or a myriad of other “statistically impossible” statements. While an issue may exist with respect to literal interpretation, as Jim suggests, the statement might be better interpreted as a habit of mind or extension of trust which Rhee encourages others to share.
If in fact the speaker is intentionally using the phrase “my central belief” in this way, I think that such imprecision is not only passable, but preferable in that it provides insight into the orientation that colors the speaker’s decision-making processes (i.e., word choice provides as much insight as semantic interpretation of the statement). If however, the phrase is being used in a manner that is more aligned with definition 3., I would wholeheartedly agree with Jim’s evaluation, since a statement intended in this way would relate an ignorance of those statistical parameters that we commonly hold as true (definition 2!), and be a potentially dangerous miscommunication.
(Interestingly, insofar as the statement may be statistically possible for a given context/set of milieu inhabitants, maybe even the speaker’s, we may wish to examine our “central belief” that this is statistically impossible!)