The two camps as I see it

There are two conflicting camps in education.  One camp believes that the route to success is by controlling and aligning as many factors as possible.  In this ideology, the problem in the current system is not the system itself, but lack of planning.  If teachers plan together so that one grade builds on the next, and all desired skills are gradually developed, then students will be able to achieve the performance goal.  In this model, the students are called on to prove what they’ve learned in a standardized test, administered at the end of the year.  Funding is then tied to the performance of the school, determined by a formula that also takes into consideration demographic information and attendance rates.  In this camp, the pervading belief is that if teachers were able to plan the perfect system, aligned both vertically and horizontally, then students will achieve the desired goals. 

Another camp believes that planning and assessing isn’t the crux of the problem.  Instead, we need a revolutionary change to take the current education system that was designed in the Industrial Age and update it.  This camp believes that, in order to have a healthy system, it must be adapted.  Changes are necessary at all levels of the organization, from the age-based system down to the standardized assessment.  In this viewpoint, human beings are at the center of the classroom, not just students.  This means that we have to look at them as individuals and make adjustments according to their needs.  Within this system, creativity is valued and divergent thinking encouraged.  People who fall in this ideological stance aren’t necessarily against standards, as they recognize the importance of having goals.  However, the usage of current standardized tests is what is questioned.  Instead of giving the tests at the end of the year when the teacher can’t take corrective action, this stance would rather have the tests earlier, so that results could be used to determine where the most attention should be given.

In both camps, teachers, administrators, and policy-makers believe they are making the best decisions for their students.  They use the information and experiences they have in order to shape their pedagogical beliefs.  Because everyone has a different set of experiences, in different contexts, with different people, and different goals, there is bound to be a different outcome. 

For myself, I believe that a mix of the two approaches is probably closer to the truth.  However, I do lean more toward the socio-cultural constructivist viewpoint.  As I’ve stated in a previous post, I don’t plan out every question I’m going to ask, although I have a good idea of where I want to go.  Instead, I listen to what the students already know, and adapt to them.  If they need more instruction in one area than another, and I’ve planned differently, then I’m not opposed to dropping my goal for the day and returning to it another day.  Sometimes, this means I’ll do it in the same unit.  Sometimes, it means it will be shifted to another unit.  I couldn’t do this in a scripted curriculum.  However, I value the importance of meeting with other teachers, across content areas.  If we could figure out a way to make sure the History teacher and the English teacher are discussing WWII at the same time, the students will note connections between the two subjects.  If the Biology teacher is discussing Ecosystems, the English teacher could provide an article to supplement this instruction in order to teach a reading skill.  They are all interrelated, so there should be a collaborative plan.  But it shouldn’t stop there.  Teachers in the middle school and teachers in the high school need to plan together.  High school teachers can tell middle school teachers what skills they’d like to see more fully developed.  Middle school teachers could tell high school teachers what skills and texts students had already learned.  In this way, students would have a cohesive, logical, relevant curriculum to give them maximum connections.

But until we sit down and reconcile these differences, this won’t happen.  We’ll continue to teach the way we think it should be done, following the rules, and getting it done.  Is it enough?  I don’t think so.  We should expect more of ourselves just as we should expect more from our students. 

Why Change IS Necessary

Today’s learners are not the same as yesteryear’s.  When the current education system was founded during the Industrial Revolution, it was exactly what the country needed.  Giving a set of clear structure to a system that was desperate for guidelines gave schools and teachers common goals, a major improvement over the previous schoolhouse Lone-Ranger approach.  The education system took the best part of the rise of industry and implemented it into action so that American citizens could rise above the rest of the world, educating the masses.  That system was effective for decades.  But, just as the automobile factory has adjusted over time to accommodate newer models of vehicle, so should education move forward to create a new system that utilizes the technology we’ve worked so hard to develop.

Whether we like it or not, our world has undergone a massive revolutionary change.  The introduction of the internet to public use transformed the way we research.  Instead of traveling to physical libraries, many students choose to conduct research through online catalogue systems.  Using web browsers, people can also easily find articles relevant to their question.  Today’s students have never had the experience of trying to research with only hard copy books at their disposal.  In fact, readers don’t ever have to hold a hard copy of a book in their hands anymore, because they can access resources within seconds by downloading the text onto their tablet or e-reader. 

Technology has not just affected the way we communicate, but it has also affected the job market.  The fact is, most jobs are not based in manual, factory labor anymore.  Most careers are founded on intellect.  Even a modern car mechanic has to undergo specialized training to handle the computer systems built into cars.  Farmers don’t milk their cows by hand anymore, they attach machines to do the milking, allowing farms to produce more.  Our world is different, the jobs are different.  Yet, eduction remains stalwartly unchanged.

Human systems dynamics recognizes that changes in context causes the need for change to a system.  In this case, a change has occurred in our culture- the introduction of computer technology, and its integration into our real world communication.  Learning can and should be interative.  As we learn new thing, as we identify and develop new technology, it should be used to modify our current practices.  We are in a new cycle of education, one that needs to be change to fit the current context.  In order to advance beyond the problem that is our broken education system, we must acknowledge that the world has change.  Once we do that, we can take action to improve it. (To learn more about human systems dynamics, visit http://www.hsdinstitute.org/). 

note: This blog was written after the first day of the Human Systems Dynamic Institute: Transforming Lives Workshop.  HSD was founded by Dr. Glenda Eoyang, and the workshop was taught by her sisters, Dr. Royce Holladay and Dr. Leslie Patterson.