If ever there were a concept that we cite regularly as educators, that we generally get wrong, “critical thinking” would certainly be a strong contender (“growth mindset” would be a strong runner up, but that’s a different blog post).  In fact, we espouse the virtues of “critical thinking” in a way that it has become synonymous with the idea of academic rigor – a general sense that students are thinking hard.  Yet critical thinking is much more than a strong workout for the brain, although it certainly is that too.  At the most superficial level, critical thinking involves the systematic analysis of evidence to form a position or judgement.  Most definitions push even further, suggesting that critical thinking should both explore bias and even adopt a skeptical perspective of any conclusions.  While we certainly like the “thinking” part of the definition, not all educators are comfortable with the “critical” part.  Openly skeptical students who consistently challenge our assumptions and perspectives are not always the most appreciated.

One of my dad’s favorite education stories to tell is about when, as a high school student, his favorite course textbook was called “viewpoints.”  I have never done historical research to get a clear sense of what this book was all about, but as my dad tells it, it was simply a book that emphasized how every perspective has a counter-perspective that deserves exploration.  As you might have guessed, the book caused enough controversy to get pulled from the curriculum.  The question of what perspectives should be taught in our schools has long been debated.

Two of the most potent curricular approaches to really encouraging critical thinking, in my opinion, are the International Baccalaureate program and Ethnic Studies.  In the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program, all diploma candidates are required to take a course known as “Theory of Knowledge.”  Basically, it’s a course that helps students explore the question of “how do you know what you know?”  For many students, this is an uncomfortable line of reasoning, as they have never stepped outside of their own experience and perspective to reflect on  the development of their own worldview.  To some parents and communities, this can be perceived as dangerous, as it encourages young people to openly analyze their set of core beliefs and perspectives.  The “International” part is also sometimes called into question.  Many stateside students learn their ethics, history, and values within a national context and culture that does not always acknowledge the big world we live in with its countless perspectives and counter-perspectives.  While I believe this type of intellectual work can actually strengthen our commitment to key concepts like liberty and equity, it isn’t universally embraced.  Students who can articulate how they have come to believe and think as they do, and contrast it with alternative perspectives, strike me as much better prepared for success in our world of ideas.

I am also a big advocate of Ethnic Studies programs, which are also not without controversy.  Recently, our Board of Education passed a resolution that will ultimately result in Ethnic Studies becoming a graduation requirement for students in the Santa Ana Unified School District.  Over the past several years, our Teaching and Learning team has developed a scope and sequence curriculum and has offered Ethnic Studies courses in several of our secondary schools.  At the heart of Ethnic Studies is the analysis of how different ethnic and racial groups in the United States have struggled and worked together in pursuit of ideals such as justice, equality, liberty, and equal protection under the law.  It engages students in discussions about the ongoing balance between governance, authority, freedom, and collective action.  Ethnic Studies reminds students that societies and governments are deeply human things that reflect the collective and individual decisions of key actors and constituencies over time.  In other words, the civil society and rule of law that defines our American identity has been rife with conflict and competing interests, and that generally the voice of minority and marginalized communities in that process has been exactly that – marginalized.

Whether the course is IB Theory of Knowledge, Ethnic Studies, or even a U.S. History course, there is always a concern, on both sides of the political spectrum, that individual teachers will abuse their position of authority with young people, and push a personal political agenda.  Furthermore, it is perhaps naive to think that curriculum development isn’t always a political act, and that what is considered “acceptable” for the classroom is always being negotiated through broader public opinion and its related democratic processes.  Even so, the risk of not engaging students in true critical thinking is much more threatening to our democracy and education system than rogue teachers or errant curriculum committees.

Again, this critical analysis of our perspectives, values, and history is in essence part of what it means to participate in a democratic system.  It seems not only appropriate, but essential for our young people to learn how to do engage in that system.   If our real goal is developing the critical thinking of our students, then we need to trust them, and our teachers, to engage in critical thought and analysis.