1. I think therefore I am.

If one classifies oneself as having a particular world view, it does not follow that this view is anything but a personal opinion. If, however, one classifies oneself as having a set of rules – or criteria – against another, opposing set of criteria, with both sets of criteria espoused by others, then that constitutes a divide.

If a person or persons choose to not engage in any debate over that divide then it does not follow that the divide does not exist. Neither choosing neutral ground, nor claiming others are ignorant of this debate negates the divide. Claiming that a debate or divide does not exist because many are not aware of it does not invalidate the position. If anything, it highlights a denier’s wifull ignorance, entrenched position and siege mentality.

Finally, claiming that those who then change their positions are fickle or attention seeking, when in fact the evidence and strength of argument has forced a rational adjustment is neither big nor clever: it’s deliberately stupid.

2. I was a teenage progressive.

If you were to look back through the photos I’ve uploaded to Twitter, you’ll see I used to bang on about all sorts of stuff that I now find cringeworthy. I always had the best of intentions, but my mentality was shaped by how I’d trained, those around me and – ta da! – Ofsted. 

I’ve written about certain changes previously, most controversially – apparently – here, when I realised that SOLO taxonomy was a waste of time. A change of position demonstrates a recognition of different approaches. It’s not something we can all do because we’re not all aware of positions, we’re affected by the choices of those around us and – ta da! – Ofsted. Yes, still. 

But that does not mean that a debate or divide does not exist or that it is not important.