Solving Some Major Societal Problems
Using Critical Thinking Skills makes it MUCH Easier to do
Regarding a successful technique to solve major societal problems, I could speak in generalities, but I think it will be more interesting (and informative) to be more specific. I’ve written about our education crisis multiple times, as that is the largest threat to America and its values. So, I’ll pick an example in that field.
Specifically: Education —> K-12 —> Subject area of Science —> State Science Standards. To a concerned citizen, here are the basic facts for this scenario:
FACT #1: Your State is one of 49 that has largely adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). [Florida is the lone holdout.]
FACT #2: The NGSS is a Progressive set of standards that has numerous major flaws (e.g., it doesn’t teach Critical Thinking, it has scrapped the Scientific Method, etc., etc.) [See here, page six, for ten major issues.]
FACT #3: Let’s assume that you (and allies) are requesting that your State correct at least two of these serious NGSS errors — Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method omissions.
Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), the State’s K-12 Department of Public Instruction (DPI) is not receptive, and pushes back with a litany of excuses, like:
EXCUSE #1: The NGSS has been adopted by some 49 states — so how can they all be wrong?
EXCUSE #2: The NGSS was written by some academic experts.
EXCUSE #3: The NGSS has the support of important scientists (NAS), business people (Achieve), and teachers (NSTA).
EXCUSE #4: Your State’s academic experts support the NGSS.
EXCUSE #5: Their State Science Standards are better than some other states’ (as their DPI has made some improvements over the base NGSS).
EXCUSE #6: Making the changes you are advocating will require that teachers will have to attend Professional Development classes.
EXCUSE #7: Making the changes you are advocating will require that some textbooks be changed.
EXCUSE #8: Your State’s DPI has too much on its plate to be able to consider the changes you are recommending.
EXCUSE #9: The State has been following the NGSS for 10± years now, and few teachers, parents, citizens, or watchdog organizations have complained.
EXCUSE #10: The State Board of Education (SBOE) oversees DPI, and there has been no SBOE directive for DPI to fix any of the NGSS errors.
EXCUSE #11: The State Legislature has the authority to pass education bills, and no legislation has directed DPI to fix any NGSS errors.
EXCUSE #12: The State’s DPI has a schedule to review the Science standards every six years, and the next review is not until 2027.
Even the most ardent education reform advocates will likely capitulate when facing this daunting list of excuses. But, does Critical Thinking help here?
YES! You could probably eventually win by arguing each and every excuse listed above, but having twelve different fights is exhausting and time-consuming. Further, by the time you’re done, everyone will have forgotten what this war was about.
The Critical Thinking solution is to change the battlefield.
DPI is giving you bureaucratic answers. Bureaucratic arguments are based on: what makes them look good, what expands their power, what justifies a larger budget, etc., etc. It’s unlikely that you can change that mentality, as it is baked in.
On the other hand, there is something also baked into bureaucracies that is in your favor: they are employees of the public. If there is public disapproval of their job performance, they: will not look good, will not be able to expand their power, will not be able to have a larger budget, etc. In other words, this is a Public Relations (PR) war.
One of the most powerful PR tools that exists, is to CHANGE PERSPECTIVE. The problem is the same, but we look at it differently.
For this education issue, we are at a fork in the road, and the choices are: a) do we continue with second-rate State Science Standards, or b) do we quickly make some meaningful improvements? The bureaucratic response from DPI is “a”, turn Left.
A suggested different perspective for turning Right, is this:
PERSPECTIVE #1: Which option is in the best interest of the K-12 children?
PERSPECTIVE #2: Which option is in the best long-range interest of the State?
PERSPECTIVE #3: Which option is in the best long-range interest of America?
In other words, every time one of the twelve excuses above is put forward, the appropriate response is: “Yes, I understand what you are saying, but which option is best for our children, state, and country?”
If that does not result in action on DPI’s part, then it may be necessary to go public, as the public will know which direction is best for our children, state, and country.
So the takeaway here is: don’t get tricked into responding to bureaucratic excuses. Move the fight to a winning battlefield.
In this example, correcting consequential K-12 state education subject standards’ errors quickly is indisputably in the best interest of students, and ultimately the state and our country — so none of the 12 excuses have any merit…
Here are other materials from this scientist that you might find interesting:
My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)
Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
It's interesting that (so far) no one has commented on the intended point of my commentary: that changing perspective can be a VERY powerful tool in problem solving...
The research provided by E.D. Hirsch, as argued by cognitive scientists, suggests that critical thinking is domain specific, and that generalized strategies to teach critical thinking are not effective and that too much time is wasted on them. He argues that if you want to engage in critical thinking on social issues, for example one has to master core content in that field to be a critical thinker. in that subject domain. Each subject has its own core content whose mastery is essential to being an effective critical thinker. Progressive education skips or marginalizes this important step, just as it does to learning what it dismisses as "facts," or "rote memorization." But to my way of thinking, you need a head full of facts, theories, names, dates, events, and on and on, which your brain can instantaneously summon and analyze as part of the critical thinking process. You cannot just "Google" these, as some claim. What are your thoughts?