As a seasoned administrator, I've witnessed multiple reforms in the pre-K-12 system. Some of the reforms have been initiated from within and others from outside the education profession.

In my experience, the internal reforms tend to generate democratic forms of participation and more local buy-in. In sharp contrast, external reforms tend to generate complaints, politicization, widespread use of media and escalating cases of "blame and shame." It is no wonder that reactions to external reforms vary.

One response to external pressure for reform is to respond with tempered rhetoric. A case in point occurred in April 1983 when teachers united to champion the profession following the publication of "A Nation at Risk." The National Education Association's Mary Hatwood Futrell and the American Federation of Teachers' Albert Shanker led the way to enact proactive change toward educator professionalization. I suggest that their power was in their tempered rhetoric.

Fast-forward to today, and the reactions to reform efforts have swelled to extremes. This month emotions flamed when "outsiders" asked educators to enact policies and practices that ran counter to their own experiences.

The NEA called for Secretary Arne Duncan's resignation at their annual convention in early July. The AFT followed suit at their convention with a call for Duncan to improve or resign. Both unions pushed back hard on testing mandates and sanctions.

Of course, there is room for argument with any reform movement. Proponents of common assessments say the tests will better align with what students need to know and do to meet 21st-century learning demands. Opponents say the tests undermine democratic control of our public education system and shift control to corporate influence.

It's hard to find a common ground in either of these positions.

Isn't it time to temper our rhetoric? Improving conditions for America's schoolchildren is important and messy work. I propose a common ground by first trying to understand each other's positions and by listening before adopting a point of view.

I agree that a critical lens is central to continuous school improvement, but extreme rhetoric clouds thinking. It divides people of good will. It shuts out reason.

On the other hand, tempered rhetoric respects disagreement. It welcomes challenges and new ideas. Its passion is supported by reason. It poses as many questions as answers, considers multiple perspectives, and makes meaning out of life's conundrums.

It acknowledges that no one individual or group has all the answers. It accepts the responsibility to influence and, at the same time, be influenced by different values and beliefs. In the end, tempered rhetoric has a way of breaking down silos, stereotypes and status.

Can we shift to dialogue and explore our assumptions? By becoming reflexively aware of our own biases in favor of or against a particular reform agenda, we can converse as allies and negotiate solutions to complex problems of educational practice.

It is being done in schools and districts across the country where leadership teams, headed by transformational leaders like Carol Burris, are "Opening the Common Core" so all students are provided with challenging learning experiences that are assessed, but not driven by textbooks and testing.

Let's try other ways to enact reform and see where it takes us.