A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Russ Wigginton, the President of the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. We were in Memphis on behalf of EdTrust-Tennessee’s Southerner’s for Fair School Funding initiative on a multi-day shoot of their inaugural episode of The Fair Share. Though we only spent a very limited time talking, one of the key takeaways from the off-camera discussion was a concept Dr. Wigginton called “Coming to the table with compromise.” This concept resonated with me, especially given today’s political climate and the difficulty many education advocacy organizations face in achieving meaningful legislative change. In today’s political climate, where education debates too often harden into stalemates, that idea felt less like an ideal and more like a necessity.
History backs this up. Major U.S. education reforms—from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 (IDEA)—passed only because lawmakers built broad, bipartisan coalitions willing to collaborate in order to succeed (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2025). Yet in recent years, the process has shifted. Legislation now feels more like a battle than a collaboration, with each side fearing that gains made this year will be undone the next. It’s Newton’s Third Law played out in policy: every action met by an equal and opposite reaction, the cart of progress pulled in both directions at once. If we want to move forward, compromise can’t be our last resort—it has to be where we start.
If we want to move forward, compromise can't be our last resort–it has to be where we start.
Importantly, compromise doesn’t mean giving up on core beliefs, but it does require a pragmatic willingness to make strategic concessions. It means coming prepared to trade on lower-priority issues to secure the most impactful changes for students. When all parties can shift their focus from rigid positions to the shared underlying interest of student well-being, the door opens to move beyond gridlock.
But compromise can be unsatisfying. A compromise settles a conflict in a practical sense, allowing parties to move forward and avoid the negative consequences of continued disagreement, but it does not resolve the underlying ideological or moral conflict. Parties in a compromise often retain their original beliefs and may feel a sense of regret or dissatisfaction with the outcome, viewing it as a partial realization of values they consider incorrect.
While a compromise provides a practical path forward, it is distinct from true consensus. The ultimate goal is to move beyond simple compromise and engage in a truly collaborative, problem-solving process—one that seeks to create new value via consensus, finding innovative, 'win-win' solutions that a simple compromise might leave on the table.
The ultimate goal is to move beyond simple compromise and engage in a truly collaborative, problem-solving process—one that seeks to create new value via consensus, finding innovative, 'win-win' solutions that a simple compromise might leave on the table.
This dynamic is famously illustrated by the "parable of the orange," in which two children argue over the last orange. A compromising solution would be to cut the orange in half. However, a collaborative, or integrative, approach would involve asking why each child wants the orange. In the story, it is revealed that one wants the fruit to eat, while the other wants the peel for baking a cake. The collaborative solution—giving the fruit to one and the peel to the other—allows both parties to achieve 100% of their interests, an outcome far superior to the 50% they would have received from a compromise.
This parable highlights a critical argument from conflict resolution literature: compromise is often an easier but suboptimal path that leaves significant value on the table. The tendency of legislative processes to favor this kind of expedient, position-based compromise over a more difficult, interest-based collaboration helps explain why major legislative deals, forged in the spirit of "meeting in the middle," can unravel over time when their unaddressed root problems become manifest (Spang, 2023 | Spangler, 2003 | Shonk, 2025).
Get Real
I can hear the skepticism already: “This all sounds nice, but it’s not realistic.” I’ve thought that too. In an era where school funding, curriculum, and policy can spark culture-war headlines overnight, the idea of consensus, let alone compromise, can feel impossible. But the more I’ve studied both the successes and failures of education legislation, the more I’ve realized the opposite: when compromise isn’t on the table, nothing moves.
In an era where school funding, curriculum, and policy can spark culture-war headlines overnight, the idea of consensus, let alone compromise, can feel impossible.
Look at the years between 2007 and 2015, when Congress couldn’t agree on how to fix No Child Left Behind. Eight years of stalemate left outdated rules in place and forced the U.S. Department of Education to issue piecemeal waivers just to keep schools afloat. When lawmakers finally returned to the table, they hammered out the Every Student Succeeds Act, a product of give-and-take that restored stability and gave states more say, while keeping equity protections in place. That wasn’t magic. It was political will to meet in the middle.
Where to Start
As I’ve considered and researched the idea of compromise and consensus, a few things have become increasingly clear:
- Some differences can’t be bridged. There are some subjects on which consensus cannot be reached. Differences in cultural or religious beliefs, for example, do not often allow room for compromise or consensus (Spangler, 2003). These and similar subjects should be treated with respect and care.
- We’re not as divided as we think. Social media has played a dangerous role in fueling polarization across the United States. We have to step outside digital spaces in favor of real, human connection to reignite what’s possible through collaboration.
- Even in the toughest arenas, common ground is possible. Finding common ground is possible, and in much more challenging subjects than US education policy. Have a look at our Bravely Bipartisan article for more on the incredible work the organization Search for Common Ground is doing in areas of conflict throughout the world.
- It starts with us. Compromise and consensus has to start with us. We must be willing to see both sides of the coin, to invite ideas that are in opposition to our own. History has shown the power of bipartisan consensus in education legislation and has shown the consequences of divided parties, unwilling to budge. We should be willing to ask ourselves, what if I was more interested in what I can give, than what I can receive?
The Path Less Traveled
Compromise and consensus aren’t shortcuts—they’re the harder road. We need to find the willingness in ourselves to set preconceived notions aside, to stop reinforcing political polarization with divisive and demeaning language, and to instead get our hands dirty with a drive to support and encourage the flame of collaboration and consensus. The history of U.S. education policy makes one idea clear: when we come to the table willing to trade, to listen, and to adapt, progress is possible.
So, let’s take Dr. Wigginton’s challenge seriously: come to the table with compromise and encourage others who are willing to do the same.
