Why Educators Don't Think Critically

Because thinking is hard.

“Thinking is difficult. That’s why most people judge,” Carl Jung

Lately, I’ve been wrestling with this idea: why most teachers or educators do not think critically? Looking at their social media posts and their comments, I have come to a rather hasty conclusion that most teachers don’t exhibit this skill at all. Or may be, they simply cannot. May be, it’s because of social media. Or, it’s the confirmation bias.

I’m not quite sure.

In this post, I’m sharing three popular statements that directly or indirectly criticize the current education system, a layperson interpretation of each, and my analysis of them through logical fallacies.

The aim: an attempt to demonstrate how to practice critical thinking¹.

How I practice Critical Thinking:

I start by questioning presuppositions, assumptions and beliefs hidden in statements, theories, or quotes about education, teaching, and learning.

Then, I break complex, vague, or abstract statements into smaller concrete components. So that I can evaluate, infer, and understand the main ideas. Pick apart the fluff from the core. In doing these, the hollow ideas, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies usually jump out from behind the curtain.

Similarly, I also analyze the rhetorical devices and their implications, like analogies, hyperbole, contrast, appeal to emotion, and appeal to authority. By doing this, I can understand how someone creates a perfect rhetoric that makes people nod their heads without even questioning the speaker or the validity of the statement.

---

Exhibit A:

"If you ran a business and every 40 mins, you rang a bell, and the entire workforce had to stop what they were doing, pick up their bags and go to another room with another group of people and do something else for 40 mins, and rinse and repeat 8 times a day, you would be bankrupt in a month.
Nobody would think of doing that and yet we think it's perfectly fine in the schools to do it."
- Sir Ken Robinson
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkIOUBFEtcg @1:09:24)

Makes sense, right?

That’s the power of rhetoric. Robinson is a master at using language, employing analogy, exaggeration, and parallelism to appeal to the emotions of those who are “frustrated” with the education system. His assertion feels and looks like a correct criticism of an outdated school system. He knows how to “talk” to his target audience, better than a stand up comedian.

The use of phrases like “pick up their bags,” “go to another room,” and “rinse and repeat 8 times a day” paints a picture of monotony, sadness, and futility.

That’s how clever rhetoricians frame issues and make a compelling argument.

However, the above quote is an example of a False Analogy. This logical fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly compares two things that are not truly comparable in a relevant way.

In this quote, Robinson is comparing the operation of a business to the operation of a school, suggesting that the negative outcome in a business setting (bankruptcy) would similarly apply to schools if schools followed a similar schedule. He is cleverly comparing coffee and cocktail.

Flaws in Robinson’s analogy:

a. Different Goals and Contexts:
The statement compares schools to businesses, implying that what is inefficient in a business context must also be inefficient in schools.

Businesses and schools however have fundamentally different goals. Businesses aim to maximize productivity and profit, whereas schools aim to educate/teach students and provide a comprehensive learning experience based on a set curriculum.

The measures of success for each are different, and what is detrimental in one context may not be in the other.

b. Nature of Activities:
The activities in a business setting typically involve sustained, focused tasks that benefit from continuity and working in a single environment.

In contrast, the school environment is designed to provide diverse learning experiences across different subjects, which inherently requires switching activities and environments.

c. Developmental Needs:
Students, especially younger ones, have different attention spans and cognitive capacity compared to adult workers in a business context. Frequent changes in activities can help maintain engagement and cater to the student’s developmental stages, something not applicable nor desirable in a business setting.

Just imagine, everyone in an office switching office rooms and job responsibilities every one hour of the day.

If Robinson’s quote makes sense, then this would too:
“If you ran a restaurant and every 40 minutes, the chef had to abandon a half-prepared dish, move to a different kitchen station with new ingredients and a new team, and start cooking something entirely unrelated, your customers would never get their meals, and your restaurant would shut down in no time. No one would dream of running a restaurant that way, yet we’ve structured schools in precisely this manner, expecting students to jump between subjects every 40 mins.”

---

Exhibit B:

“एउटा विद्यार्थी १२ वर्ष स्कुल पढ्छ, ६ वर्ष कलेज पढ्छ र बाउआमाको पैसा खर्च गर्छ। १८ वर्ष पढेपछि ६ महिना कोरियन भाषा सिक्छ र कोरिया हिड्छ। गुरु कस्तो पढाउनुभो? मन्त्रीज्यू कस्तो शिक्षा नीति बनाउनुभो ?”
- मनोज गजुरेल, हास्य कलाकार (Source)

“A student studies in a school for 12 years, and a university for 6 years. And the parent has to pay for his studies. After 18 years of studying, he learns the Korean language in 6 months and flies to Korea. Teachers, what did you teach? Ministers, what education policy did you make?” Manoj Gajurel, a popular Nepali comedian.

This quote too seems logical. At first.

The core argument suggests that even after 18 years of formal education, the student hasn’t gained skills that are directly useful or applicable in the real world.

But when faced with a practical need (of learning Korean language for foreign employment), the same student can achieve this in just 6 months. This then raises the question:

If the student can learn such a skill in a short time, why did 18 years of education not equip him or her with similarly useful skills?

Valid point.

But on a critical inspection, this quote too contains several logical fallacies.

The Fallacy of Oversimplification:
The argument oversimplifies the purpose and content of education by suggesting that students should not have to leave the country for foreign employment after getting 18 years of education.

The argument also misrepresents educational goals by implying that the education system’s failure is due to its inability to teach specific skills quickly.

Flaws in Gajurel’s argument:

a. False Cause: Purpose of Education:

Gajurel’s argument assumes that because the student didn’t learn a specific, immediately useful skill (eg: the Korean language) in school or university, the education system failed. This incorrectly implies that the primary purpose of education should have been to teach that specific skill.

b. Hasty Generalization

Gajurel’s argument generalizes the failure of the entire education system based on one example (the student learning Korean later).

A single instance of needing to acquire a foreign language skill post-graduation doesn’t mean that the education system as a whole is ineffective. Many students do gain valuable skills from school and university that contribute to their personal and professional lives.

c. Appeal to Emotion (of the parents)

By mentioning parents paying for 18 years of education, Gajurel has tried to evoke frustration and a sense of injustice rather than presenting a logical argument.

Yes, financial costs is a legitimate concern. But this emotional appeal distracts from a rational evaluation of whether the education system provides value in so many other ways, such as intellectual growth and personal development.

If Gajurel’s statement makes sense, then this would too:
“After years of studying math in the school, I still can’t fix a car. Therefore, math education is useless. Teachers, what did you teach? Ministers, what education policy did you make?”

---

Exhibit C:

“Teaching is a creative profession, not a delivery system. Great teachers do pass on information, but what great teachers also do is mentor, stimulate, provoke, engage.”
- Sir Ken Robinson
Source: Edutopia

One more from Robinson. What can I say, I’m a huge fan of his rhetorical style. His use of contrast (false dichotomy) is something we all can learn from.

Sure, the debate around what “teaching” entails is a continuous one. Progressives have attempted to change the definition and the roles of a teacher for over a century. One such attempt is to create a binary comparison: traditional/teacher-centered teaching vs progressive/student-centered teaching.

And, this particular (mis)quote is at the center of this idea: “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire”.

Robinson’s statement is a variation of the “not filling of a pail/lighting of a fire” idea but with a shiny progressive touch.

Flaws in Robinson’s quote:

a. False Dichotomy (Either-Or Fallacy)

Robinson’s statement creates an artificial binary by implying that teaching is either a "creative profession" or a "delivery system," as if the two are mutually exclusive.

In reality, teaching fundamentally involves both — passing on information (content delivery) and doing so in a creative way.

b. Strawman Fallacy

His phrase "delivery system" oversimplifies and misrepresents a common view of teaching (i.e., traditional lecture-style instruction) to make it easier to dismiss and attack.

Of course, most teachers would argue that effective teaching involves more than just delivering the content in the classroom. Planning, classroom management, setting the culture of learning, explanation, modeling, assessment and so many others. And adding creativity whenever necessary.

c. Appeal to Idealism

Robinson presents an idealized version of teaching, implying that all great teachers must embody these specific characteristics. While these traits are desirable, teachers who do not focus on content mastery and structured instruction simply can’t justify their job.

The ideal teaching is where a teacher does not have to teach or deliver any content, while the students naturally learn on their own.

But let’s not get carried away.

How does one “provoke” or “stimulate” and make students think without teaching the content?

Remember, “We teach problem solving through math, not math through problem solving. We teach critical thinking through history, not history through critical thinking.”²

If a teacher believes that teaching does not entail “teaching content” to the students, his/her students are doomed to fail.

---

Getting better at Critical Thinking

Most of us know we need to get better at Critical Thinking but it’s not an easy skill to develop. Because, this skill is heavily interdependent on “domain specific knowledge”. Deeper understanding of a domain knowledge is at the core of Critical Thinking. That’s why, critical thinking is more to do with “what” than the “how”.³

These are the things I’m doing continuously. You might find these helpful.

UNDERSTAND:

a. how learning happens, and how teaching happens

b. the role of teaching (as input) and learning (as process)

c. the differences among “education”, “teaching”, and “learning”

d. the past and current political trend around education, views around teaching/teachers.

Next,

STUDY:

a. Language, rhetorics, persuasion

b. Culture, sociology, and psychology

c. Inherent human biases (these are features not bugs)

d. Logical fallacies and Rhetorical devices

And,

READ:

a. Books, articles, posts of your favorite educational heroes

b. Books, articles, posts of people who you don’t like or support

c. Social media posts and comments

d. Your own posts and comments

Finally,

Ask. Think. Explore. Practice. Argue. Reflect. Debate. Share. Ask.

---

1. I am taking this definition of Critical Thinking by Dan Willingham: Critical thinking consists of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth.

2. Lucy Crehan in Peps Mccrea’s Memorable Teaching.

3. Again, Dan Willingham: People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it, you can apply it in any situation. Research from cognitive science shows that thinking is not that sort of skill. The processes of thinking are intertwined with the content of thought (that is, domain knowledge).