In education, we spend a lot of time searching for the answer. Educators want to know what works, and administrators are often working to identify the best path forward. Too often, that search pushes us into either/or thinking, with theories, methodologies, and practices positioned as competing camps rather than tools that can coexist.

Theories matter. Research matters. Evidence-based practices matter.

But if we adopt a single framework, methodology, or evidence-based practice as the only answer, we risk not meeting the diverse needs of all the students in our care.

The challenge arises when a single theory becomes dogma and is treated as the only acceptable approach.



What if the better answer is often: “Yes, and.”

The wonderful school community at SFDS

The phrase “yes, and” comes from improvisational theater, where participants accept what has been offered and build upon it rather than shutting it down. Applied to education, “yes, and” asks us to consider what we can learn from different theories and approaches, rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.



Educational practices have long been shaped by theoretical paradigms—behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism, and others. These theories influence research, curricula, instruction, teacher preparation, and even entire school philosophies.

Educators should understand the theories that shape different approaches and interventions and be equipped to draw from them based on the needs of the student in front of them.

A teacher can be extensively trained in a particular instructional approach and still encounter a student for whom that approach does not work—or find that an approach that worked yesterday may not work today. That does not necessarily mean the research is wrong or the approach has failed. It may simply mean the educator needs additional strategies, tools, and flexibility.

We need to ask ourselves:

What does this student need, and which approach—or combination of approaches—can best meet that need?

This is where “yes, and” thinking becomes essential.

Knowing multiple approaches allows a teacher to make informed decisions rather than simply follow a prescribed program. The skill is not simply knowing what to do. It is understanding why you are doing it, recognizing when it is not working, and having the knowledge to make a different choice.

This Starts Before the Classroom

If we expect teachers to have a toolbox, we have to make sure we are actually giving them one.

That work begins in teacher preparation programs.

Future educators should leave these programs understanding major theories of learning and, more importantly, how those theories show up in actual classrooms.

They should be prepared to examine a curriculum, intervention, or instructional strategy and ask:

What theoretical paradigm informs this approach?

What evidence supports it?

Who was included in that evidence?

What might this approach overlook?

What alternatives should I understand?

Too often, we train educators in what to do without spending enough time helping them understand why an approach works, for whom it works, and when they may need to do something differently.

Teacher preparation should develop practitioners who are informed enough to question, flexible enough to adapt, and confident enough to respond to the learner in front of them.

That does not mean abandoning evidence-based practice. It means understanding the evidence deeply enough to use it thoughtfully.

School Leaders Have a Responsibility, Too

We cannot ask teachers to exercise professional judgment and then place them in systems that do not allow them to use it.

Administrators help determine whether a school becomes a place of rigid implementation or thoughtful practice. When a school becomes overly committed to one framework, one curriculum, or one definition of “best practice,” even highly skilled educators may have little room to respond to what they are observing in their classrooms.

School leaders should be asking:

• Are we giving our educators a broad enough toolbox?

• Do they understand the theories and research behind the practices we ask them to implement?

• Are we creating opportunities for them to learn across different theoretical approaches?

• When a teacher tells us something is not working for a particular student, do we treat that observation as resistance—or as valuable data driven information?

• Are we building schools where educators are encouraged to remain curious?



What a Model School Can Look Like

At St. Francis de Sales School for the Deaf, this is not an abstract conversation.

Our students are Deaf, DeafBlind, and Deaf Disabled, and they are not a monolith. They bring different languages, communication preferences, cultures, abilities, experiences, and learning needs into our classrooms. A practice that creates access for one student may need to be adapted significantly for another.

That reality requires us to resist the comfort of a single answer.

Being a model school does not mean believing we have discovered the perfect method. I would argue that it means the opposite. It means creating a culture in which educators are expected to know their students deeply, understand the tools available to them, examine evidence critically, and remain willing to adjust.

At SFDS, we ask not only whether something is considered a best practice, but whether it is the best practice for the student in front of us.

This kind of culture cannot depend on one exceptional teacher working around a system. Leadership has to design for it.

At SFDS, we embrace a “Yes, And” approach that recognizes there is rarely one method that meets the needs of every learner. Our practices may include positive behavioral supports AND neurodevelopmental and trauma-informed approaches; Science of Reading AND balanced literacy practices; ASL AND spoken English; traditional seating AND flexible learning environments; and structured lessons AND project-based learning.

The goal is not to choose one approach over another simply because it belongs to a particular school of thought. The goal is to develop educators with a broad enough toolbox to thoughtfully select, combine, and adapt evidence-based practices based on the needs of individual students.

For school leaders, that means investing in professional learning, encouraging collaboration, creating room for thoughtful experimentation, and trusting educators to share what they are observing. It also means being willing to question our own assumptions.

Begin by Asking: Best Practice for Whom?

There will always be new research, curricula, frameworks, and interventions promising better outcomes for students. We should continue to study them, learn from them, and incorporate strong evidence into our practice.

But we should also keep asking:

For whom?

Under what circumstances?

And what happens when the student in front of us needs something else?

Educators need the knowledge and flexibility to recognize when an approach is working and when another tool is needed. School leaders have a responsibility to create environments where that kind of professional judgment is valued.

Perhaps the goal should not be to find the best practice.

Perhaps we should be building educators—and schools—that are prepared to say:



Yes, and.

Sincerely,

Dr. Jodi L. Falk

Executive Director

St. Francis de Sales School for the Deaf