One of the things I’ve noticed over my almost 40 years in public education is that we love a good debate.
If you’ve spent any time in schools, you’ve likely heard the back-and-forth conversations:
- Knowledge versus competencies
- Direct instruction versus inquiry
- Technology versus books
- Traditional practice versus innovation
Before long, people find themselves in camps, defending positions as though educational success depends on choosing the “right” side.
The problem? Most of the important questions in education aren’t ‘either-or’ questions. They’re ‘both-and’ questions.

I am reminded of this when I visit classrooms. In one room, a teacher may be explicitly teaching a concept, carefully modelling thinking and providing students with clear direction. At another time, those same students can be working collaboratively, asking questions, solving problems, and applying their learning in ways that were meaningful to them.
So which approach is better?
Neither … and both.
The real success isn’t found in the strategy. It’s found in the teacher’s ability to understand what those learners need at that moment.
As parents, we’ve all likely seen something similar at home. There are moments when our children need structure, routine, and clear expectations. There are other moments when they need freedom, exploration, and the opportunity to figure things out for themselves. Most of us intuitively know that effective parenting requires both. Yet in education, we sometimes act as though we need to choose one side or the other.
Why?
Perhaps because labels are easier than complexity.
It’s easier to advocate for a program, a methodology, or a philosophy than it is to wrestle with the reality that learners are wonderfully diverse. What works brilliantly for one child may not work for another. What transforms learning in one classroom may need significant adaptation in the classroom next door.
That’s the challenge and the beauty of education.
I’ve often written about the importance of asking why. When we become overly attached to a particular approach, we can lose sight of the reason we adopted it in the first place. The conversation shifts from “What are students learning?” to “Which method is best?” These are not the same questions.

The schools I most admire are not defined by educational extremes. They are not constantly searching for the next silver bullet or defending every existing practice. Instead, they remain relentlessly focused on learners and being open to change.
They ask:
- What do our students need at this time?
- What evidence do we have that learning is occurring?
- How might we adapt our approaches right now to better serve the learners in front of us?
Those questions create much richer conversations than debates about instructional camps.
The reality is that great teaching has always been both science and art. Research matters. Evidence matters. Effective practices matter — but, so do professional judgement, relationships, timing, and context. A strategy that is powerful in one setting may be ineffective in another. A teacher’s expertise lies not simply in knowing a collection of strategies, but in knowing when and why to use them.
That requires flexibility. It requires humility. And most importantly, it requires an openness to doing something differently.
When we do these things, many of education’s most polarizing debates begin to fade into the background.
The question is no longer whether we should choose direct instruction or inquiry, knowledge or competencies, technology or books.
The question becomes much simpler: “In this moment, what will best help this learner thrive?”
When we start there, we stop choosing sides. And we start finding solutions.





