 |
Reforming or Transforming Education |
|
Reforming or Transforming Education |
|
FREE
NEWSLETTER NEW GREAT
GIFT!
Contents TEACHER
THINKING EDUCATION
MYTHS
Note: Printer-friendly versions of documents on this site require Adobe Acrobat Reader. Get it free by clicking the button.
|
This article is from the January 2003 Focus on Teachers Newsletter, where it is available in printable format. Reforming
or Transforming Education: Few institutions possess as long and weighty a history as education. Disagreements about what education should be or do have existed since the time of Socrates and the Sophists. But in the past 50 years, dissatisfaction with public education has risen exponentially. Condemnation of what schools do wrong has long since drowned out any praise for what they do right. Everyone from the President to school superintendents are falling all over themselves to respond to the criticisms by instituting one reform after another. As result, education reform is now the norm rather than the exception. Yet despite the constant parade of reforms, little of substance changes. Certainly,
people and institutions must change over time or risk becoming extinct—literally
or figuratively. Productive changes improve the person or institution so that it
may function more effectively in, and be more responsive to, a constantly shifting
environment. Yet attempts at change in education often serve little purpose but
creating new problems. Here
are several factors that may help us understand why wholesale reforms in education
rarely satisfy those who find fault with the entire process. The Business Model In
a business, there is a tangible product or service. The purpose of a toaster is to
make toast. While a manufacturer may improve the electronics, the functionality,
or the design, the success of the product is ultimately judged by how well it
makes toast. You won’t find people condemning it because it doesn’t also wash
clothes or generate orbital velocities for spacecraft. The ‘business’ of an auto repair service is fixing or improving the functions of an automobile. Mechanics are judged by how efficiently and effectively they do that. The car runs well or it doesn’t. And this judgment is rarely subjective because computers can measure everything from wheel alignment to fuel efficiency. The auto repair service results in objectively measurable changes in a tangible object. In
both examples, the product and/or service are external to the people who make that
product or provide that service, as well as to the people who purchase the product
or service. The results can be seen and evaluated against some objective standard.
Further, there is general consensus about what a toaster and auto mechanic are
supposed to do. Not so in education. a. Unlike the toaster, which only has to make toast,
people disagree about the “product” or “service” of education. Some
believe that the primary purpose of schools is the transmission of knowledge;
others say it is enculturation of young people into societal and cultural norms;
and others say schools are accountable for the physical, emotional, and
psychological growth of students, and the development of individual potential.
Still others insist that public education is responsible for all of these...and
more. b. Although there is disagreement on what education
should be doing, many reformers argue that
transmission of knowledge is the most important purpose and the one for which
schools and teachers should be held accountable. This view presupposes that 1.)
there is a tangible, fixed, and agreed upon body of knowledge that all students
must possess; and 2.) it is possible to “transmit” that knowledge from one
person to another. Even if one accepts these statements, “possession” of
knowledge remains internal to the student's brain/mind. It is not “out there”
where it can be hooked up to impartial diagnostic machines and measured. The way
that knowledge is stored and/or retrieved differs from student to student. In education, results must be indirectly observed and
assessed. Arriving at an assessment method or methods that are both valid and
reliable are always a source of disagreement, simply because of the variability of
human thought and values. So, unlike business, education has one or more largely
intangible and controversial purposes, the results of which are evaluated by
equally controversial assessments. Yet the results of those assessments are
presently being used to determine whether schools are doing their job...whatever
that is...They are being used to judge teacher effectiveness—even when what teachers are being asked to do is
called into question by a growing number of research studies. Education ultimately involves human minds rather than tangible goods and services. As much as it might make educator's jobs easier, there are no "standard" human minds. As long as reformers persist in treating the educational process as a single entity—as long as one-shot "across the board" solutions are proposed for multiple complex issues—education will not experience meaningful changes. It seems unlikely that there will ever be agreement about what education should or shouldn’t be and do. People disagreed about the purpose of education even when life was relatively simple compared to today's world. If we can't agree on what education is supposed to do, how do we know what needs reforming? At first glance, education is less like a
single-product business and more like a huge conglomerate with companies dealing
in everything from banking to transportation, and from foods to media. I
urge you to to read
the article by Peter Sacks in the January 8, 2003 issue of Education Week.
Sacks discusses some of the dangers of running education like a corporation. The Machine Model The
focus of educational reform is on “what’s wrong” rather than “what’s
right”—on fixing what’s broken
rather than building on what already works well. By what "works," I’m
referring to individual teachers and programs that have demonstrated their
effectiveness in real world situations with real world students—teachers and
programs whose students exemplify what education claims to be about. I'm referring
to focusing, not so much on what those teachers do, but on the thinking—
the beliefs and values—that
support those actions. Focusing
on what’s right is counter-intuitive
in a culture dominated by the Newtonian worldview—the machine model. Other than
keeping a machine greased and tuned, little attention is paid to the parts that
work. Rather, all efforts go into fixing broken parts in the belief that if all
parts work correctly, the machine will return to efficient operation. Comfortable
with this traditional model, reformers fail to recognize that schools are not
factories and students are not standardized assembly-line products. The machine model of reform fails to take into account the interactions among the parts. In a machine, interactions are considered primarily when the machine is designed. After that, the interaction of parts is predictable. One gear interlocks with another. When one turns, the other turns. The application of X amount of power results in Y movement. Gears and circuits don’t “decide” how they will function on a given day. Students and teachers do. So reforms that conceptualize education as a machine and strive to fix broken parts must, inevitably, fall short. The Education Model??? The metaphors through which we conceptualize aspects of our world shape our perceptions and behaviors. Education has never had a unique operating metaphor of its own. Thomas Sergiovanni states that "We are still using economic principles and vocabulary to express educational ideas. We are still allowing economy and production to shape and determine our understanding of education. We are still seeing students as raw materials to be processed in the most efficient way." Reformers approach change as if methods that work in commerce or factories will achieve the same results in education. But because they deal in very different end results, corporations and machines are misleading metaphors on which to base decisions. Sergiovanni accuses educational leadership of being "characterless" and "too receptive to influences from too many other areas of knowledge and too many other disciplines. As a result, [education] has little or no identify of its own...little or no sense of what it is, what it means, where it is going, or even why it exists." In Sergiovanni's words, "You can't borrow character, you have to create it." 1 The Limits of Research Reforms often spring from educational research. But unlike scientific research on inanimate matter, educational research does not result in the same certainty. Mandating programs or approaches that worked in a research setting to an entire state or to the nation's schools at large fails to recognize the influence of context and the importance of interactions. In the November, 2002 issue of Educational
Researcher, David Berliner calls educational research “The Hardest Science
of All.” “Under
the stewardship of the Department of Education, recent acts of Congress
confuse the methods of science with the process of science, possibly doing great
harm to scholarship in education. An otherwise exemplary National Research
Council Report to help clarify the nature of educational science fails to
emphasize the complexity of scientific work in education due to the power of
contexts, the ubiquity of interactions, and the problem of decade by findings
interactions. Discussion of these issues leads to the conclusion that educational
science is unusually hard to do and that the government may not be serious about
wanting evidence-based practices in education.”
2 Certainly, educators want the best possible
evidence-based practices, the most highly qualified and effective teachers, the
best-designed curricula, and the most valid and reliable assessment. But if each
of those factors—and all the other factors involved in the educational
process— were the best they could be, I sincerely doubt that we would see the
improvement we expect. Why? Because research studies are typically done on
observable behaviors of either the teachers or students. The underlying social, cultural, and individual belief
structures that unconsciously drive those behaviors remains unexamined, and
therefore, unchanged. Programs based on the latest research must still be
carried out by individual teachers, many of whom expect those programs to fail. Beliefs
about students, about learning, and about teaching on which the programs are based
do not fit those teachers' model of the world. In effect, the programs fall on
fallow ground. What kind of crop would one expect to get by using high quality
seed, then planting it in hard-packed rocky soil in which nothing as grown for
years? Just as with our New Year's resolution, attempting to change behaviors
without changing deep structures, has little chance of success. The Meaning of Reform The word reform itself unconsciously
shapes the kinds of changes that are possible. a. In 1913, Webster’s
Unabridged Dictionary defined reform as “To return to a good state.” While
many people might consciously define reform as an effort to improve or to
remove defects, unconsciously this “return to a good state” often lurks
in the background as the ultimate goal. This thinking arises from the
presuppositions that 1.) education was once in a “good state” (Back to
Basics!); and 2.) the same "good state" is appropriate for today’s
schools. There was a time when the physical, psychological, and moral development of a young person was the domain of parents and family. Parents sent their children to school to learn to read, write, and do basic arithmetic. Reading was often confined to the Bible or other religious texts. Computation focused on problems like the number of bushels of wheat one might expect to get from 5 acres of land. (See the example below) There was a time when young people did what they were
told out of a sense of duty, obligation, or fear. Questioning authority was
“disrespectful.” They learned in ways that today’s research suggests is not
“natural”—but the human mind is nothing if not adaptable. Personal
pride or a caning were powerful motivators. There was a time when school was the only access
students had to the larger world—to exotic lands and peoples very different from
their families and the land on which they had grown up. There was a time when people lived their entire lives
without traveling more than a few miles in any direction. Men began working
directly out of school and stayed at that job until he retired—or died.
Clearly, this is not the world in which our students now live. In today’s world, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers change jobs on average every three and one-half years. Some of those jobs are in the same industry, but many people move to a completely different line of work in a different part of the country—or world. People live longer. Women whose life expectancy was
once no longer than the years it took them to raise their family now look forward
to another 20, 30, or 40 more productive years. And how likely is it that “job
satisfaction” and “personal fulfillment” would have been a serious factor
during the early days of public education? So it should come as no surprise that reforms based
on the goal of “returning to a good state” are
doomed to failure. b. A second dictionary definition of reform
is “Action to improve social or economic conditions without radical or
revolutionary change.” The very word “re-form” suits this definition and
creates an unconscious and limiting assumption—that the existing form must remain. To “re-form” is to rearrange the
existing parts. In a way, it is similar to the word “re-model.” Remodeling may
be as simple as rearranging the furniture in one’s home. It may involve
converting the garage to another bedroom, or adding a second story. But ultimately, the footprint of the house remains
unchanged. The foundation on which it rests remains unchanged. If that foundation
is sound, remodeling may be all that is required. But when that foundation is
cracked or made of inferior materials, remodeling— re-forming—is ultimately a
waste of effort, time, and money. I would suggest that this is the case in
education. Today’s reform efforts are comparable to building a modern skyscraper
on the foundation of an 18th century log cabin or a 19th
century tenement building. They are comparable to building a space shuttle on the
foundation of a Model-T and then wondering why it won’t lift off! On the surface, reform sounds preferable to
revolution, but revolutionary change need not be violent. It does, however,
require a radical change in thinking—a major shift in the worldview of all the
major players. What
is Transformation? To
“transform” means to change the
form, not rearrange it. The Alchemists believed they could transform base metals
into gold. In nature, transformations alter not only the appearance, but the
character and way of life of an organism. An egg transforms into an animal, and a
larva into a butterfly. Transformations can also result in negative changes, such
as when normal cells transform into cancer cells. Life-altering
events often transform an individual’s
entire way of thinking and being in the world. Many of you can probably recall an
event or experience that resulted in an “aha.” Thereafter, it was impossible
for you to think or even perceive some aspect of your life in the old way. Those
transforming events or experiences may be painful, joyous, or emotionally neutral.
At times, they occur after a lifetime of experience, the proverbial straw that
broke the camel’s back. Or they may be as rapid as a near-miss accident that
forces contemplation of one’s own mortality. They may be as simple as a question
that encourages you to consider something in a new way. However the change occurs,
once the wiring of the brain/mind shifts to a new pattern, there’s no going
back. Although they may happen naturally, the events and experiences that facilitate the transformation of individuals or institutions are challenging to orchestrate. While we may not know what will trigger transformation in each individual, we do know that there are ways to facilitate the process. "Chance favors the prepared mind." By bringing old limiting beliefs and presuppositions into consciousness, we begin loosening the threads of the cocoon—weakening the shell of the egg so that transformation can more easily take place. In the case of an educational system that is failing its students, its teachers, and society at large, I suggest that not making that effort is literally, unthinkable. What
will happen if educators continue to ignore the fundamental changes in thinking,
the major shifts in form and function, that must occur? The dinosaur was once the
most powerful creature on earth. It had been around for eons and was highly
successful in its ecological niche. And then the unthinkable happened. Within a
relatively short time, the dinosaurs were gone—replaced by other creatures that
had adapted to the changes in their environment. The dinosaurs had no
choice— biological evolution, particularly in animals that large, is slow in
coming. Educational policy makers do have a choice. Evolution of thought can occur much more quickly and can be facilitated by conscious effort. A few have already made that effort. Pockets of excellence exist throughout the educational system. However many in education have ignored the signs that parents are no longer willing to wait for them to clean up their act. The number of home-schooled children in America is now approaching two million and growing as much as 15% a year. The number of alternative schools and charter schools is on the rise. The call for vouchers further threatens public education. Yet many educational policy makers continue to hold fast to the old ways, blaming the public for undermining the system rather than examining the crumbling and archaic belief systems underlying their actions. They continue trying to force students to conform to schools of the past rather than designing programs that conform to students of the present and future. They continue in the hopeless attempt to produce a largely homogeneous educational system for an increasingly heterogeneous population. They continue unfairly blaming students and teachers for the failure of their ill-conceived mandates. They continue to wallow in reform as society leaves them behind. Perhaps they subscribe to the words of W. Edward Deming, "Change is not necessary. Survival is not mandatory." The other choice is challenging. I doubt that the larva rushes eagerly toward its transformation into a butterfly. It has no idea what awaits it outside the cocoon. All it knows is that it can no longer survive within those confines. The time has come when it must transform or die. Sounds a little dramatic, but in large measure, the transformation of education is somewhat similar. We have no way of knowing what "life outside the cocoon" will be like. But as reasoning beings, we are pretty sure that it will be very different. That in itself is enough to keep some people from considering the possibility. Safety/security is a fundamental human value. The known always feels more secure than the unknown. Stepping into the unknown is a risk--one some are unwilling to take. The process of transformation itself may, at times, be painful. But will it be any more painful than watching the effects of the present system on students? Will it be any more painful than seeing the enthusiasm and promise with which teachers come into the profession wither away at the altar of standards, benchmarks, and high-stakes tests? Ultimately, if education does not transform, it will, like the larva that does not transform, decline and die. And given current conditions, if public education does not transform, that would be a fitting end! The challenge that confronts education is not reformation, but metamorphosis—transforming into a viable institution that serves the needs of today’s society and tomorrow’s world. It requires admitting that some traditional beliefs and values are no longer valid in a changing world. It demands evolving, growing, and learning. It involves seeking out ways to shift worldviews—to reexamine preconceptions, renew commitments, and rebuild theoretical foundations on the basis of the best available knowledge and wisdom. How, specifically, does an institution transform itself? In the coming months, we’ll offer, not answers, but a variety of suggestions. Transformation within an institution as large and complex as education requires more than changing surface behaviors. In addition to individual belief changes, it will require changing the culture of schools and the relationship between schools and society. It will require a redefinition (or perhaps multiple definitions) of education and the possibility that different students may require different educational processes—substantively different processes, not just variations on a theme! The transformation of individuals and
their subsequent inability to function within the old structure is a beginning.
The movement toward “learning communities” in which the artificial
designations of teacher, learner, and administrator become irrelevant is a step in
the right direction. As we begin a New Year, let’s resolve to do “just one thing” each day to help education transform rather than reform. Look at a student in a new way, try something different in your teaching. Reflect, as Louis suggests, on what works and what doesn’t. And always, ask questions! Question every aspect of traditional education. What, specifically, is the role of a teacher? Why are students arranged in groups or classes? What is the purpose of assessment? Why are subjects taught as separate disciplines? Why is learning chopped up into discrete blocks of time? In particular, question the unquestionable—dissect the most sacred of the sacred cows! Who
knows? One of those actions may be the one that triggers an evolution to another
level of thought—to another level of possibility. But if not, you will have
taken one step toward being a more thoughtful and reflective educator. "If
not you, who? If not now, when?" 1 Sergiovanni, Thomas J. (1993) Organizations or Communities? Changing the Metaphor Changes the Theory. Eric Document 376008, invited address, AERA. 2 Berliner, David C. (2002) Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All, Educational Researcher, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 18-20.
|
||
| ©2001-2002-2003 Teacher's Mind Resources |
|||
