|
I had observed that when bureaucrats run things we get bureaucratic outcomes. This was the rejoinder I got, and I find it a bit disconcerting. It degrades the dialogue by demeaning people, and that doesn't seem a helpful direction to me.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Discouraging Discussion?
I had observed that when bureaucrats run things we get bureaucratic outcomes. This was the rejoinder I got, and I find it a bit disconcerting. It degrades the dialogue by demeaning people, and that doesn't seem a helpful direction to me.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Common Core Debate Misses the Bigger Point
Teeth are gnashing over the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for education. State governments are reconsidering their involvement with the standards and testing consortia, parents groups and education activists are protesting, and teachers’ unions are mobilizing resistance. On the other side, standards and testing advocates are editorializing against the politicization of the standards and calling for patience while the standards prove their worthiness.
This overheated debate has intensified the polarization already present and growing in the politics of education reform. But most of the rhetoric—on both sides—misses a more fundamental point about schools, teaching and learning. Namely, that as the bureaucratization of education grows, trust—among parents, school staff, students and education “leaders”—erodes. In the process, students suffer, because teaching and learning are about relationships, while bureaucracies shape us by their rules and procedures.
As the fabric of social relations has unraveled the last 40 years, trust has declined and other forms and principles of order and authority have arisen to replace it. In his invaluable book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam points out that social capital (networks of richly varied relational connections among people, especially in groups) correlates with trust. High social capital, high trust, and society, including schools, “works” better.
He also points out that the per capita number of lawyers in the US was constant from 1900 to 1970. But when social capital really began to drop--in the mid-1960s--lawyering took off, because, he pithily observes, lawyers create synthetic trust. In short, low social capital, low trust, and society doesn't “work” as well. And, along the way, we come to rely more on legal authority than trust relationships.
So, law, contracts, and lawyers have increasingly become the mechanism by which problems get solved. One result is that we more and more rely on external authorities (the state paramount among them) to decide on best outcomes and mandate their pursuit. Lawyers, per se, are not the problem. Rather, as trust and social capital have declined people have turned to lawyers more and more in order to get that trust replacement. Lawyering rose as a response to the trust crisis; lawyering did not cause it.
But once set in motion, the process moves ahead inexorably. The authority of the state and laws is comprehensive and definitive, transcending any trust-built choices coming out of actual relationships among people. Why bother figuring things out, since the state just mandates anyway, and the “stakeholders”—parents, teachers, administrators, etc.—find themselves tempted to jockey for political position rather than do the difficult work of relationship-building.
Bureaucracy and administrative decision making (the law’s near cousins), similarly, corrode trust by shifting the regulation of schools further up the bureaucratic hierarchy and farther away from local participants—including parents. In so doing, the legal and institutional requirements of education become more intensive but less concretely useful in class rooms. This bureaucratization serves to ‘tighten’ the organizational environment, thereby increasing the risk of what sociologist Charles Perrow called normal accidents—predictable system failure arising out of the very complexity of that system. The increasing governmental management and concomitant decreased local involvement, in other words, makes it more likely that schools as organizations will ‘fail’ to meet their goals.
The antidote to this dysfunction is the creating and maintaining of effective schools that engage and are engaged by their communities and families. What does this local involvement look like? A thousand and one things, like story nights--coordinated by parents and teachers, in which students present their work; parent engagement in discussion about curriculum adoption (which requires an administrative culture open to this); volunteerism to support students in need, not just one’s own children; annual student-led conferences with parents and teachers, or anything that causes parents, staff and students to work together are all examples of the collaborative and relational work that makes for more effective functioning of a school as organization. When this kind of engagement happens, tasks get done, trust increases, and relationships grow better and richer.
Last week was Teacher Appreciation Week, and countless people wrote, posted and tweeted about how much they love teachers. Those were kind and pleasant, but if you want to appreciate your teachers the other 51 weeks of the year, work with them, build relationships with them, and trust them. Your local school will be better off for it.
This overheated debate has intensified the polarization already present and growing in the politics of education reform. But most of the rhetoric—on both sides—misses a more fundamental point about schools, teaching and learning. Namely, that as the bureaucratization of education grows, trust—among parents, school staff, students and education “leaders”—erodes. In the process, students suffer, because teaching and learning are about relationships, while bureaucracies shape us by their rules and procedures.
As the fabric of social relations has unraveled the last 40 years, trust has declined and other forms and principles of order and authority have arisen to replace it. In his invaluable book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam points out that social capital (networks of richly varied relational connections among people, especially in groups) correlates with trust. High social capital, high trust, and society, including schools, “works” better.
He also points out that the per capita number of lawyers in the US was constant from 1900 to 1970. But when social capital really began to drop--in the mid-1960s--lawyering took off, because, he pithily observes, lawyers create synthetic trust. In short, low social capital, low trust, and society doesn't “work” as well. And, along the way, we come to rely more on legal authority than trust relationships.
So, law, contracts, and lawyers have increasingly become the mechanism by which problems get solved. One result is that we more and more rely on external authorities (the state paramount among them) to decide on best outcomes and mandate their pursuit. Lawyers, per se, are not the problem. Rather, as trust and social capital have declined people have turned to lawyers more and more in order to get that trust replacement. Lawyering rose as a response to the trust crisis; lawyering did not cause it.
But once set in motion, the process moves ahead inexorably. The authority of the state and laws is comprehensive and definitive, transcending any trust-built choices coming out of actual relationships among people. Why bother figuring things out, since the state just mandates anyway, and the “stakeholders”—parents, teachers, administrators, etc.—find themselves tempted to jockey for political position rather than do the difficult work of relationship-building.
Bureaucracy and administrative decision making (the law’s near cousins), similarly, corrode trust by shifting the regulation of schools further up the bureaucratic hierarchy and farther away from local participants—including parents. In so doing, the legal and institutional requirements of education become more intensive but less concretely useful in class rooms. This bureaucratization serves to ‘tighten’ the organizational environment, thereby increasing the risk of what sociologist Charles Perrow called normal accidents—predictable system failure arising out of the very complexity of that system. The increasing governmental management and concomitant decreased local involvement, in other words, makes it more likely that schools as organizations will ‘fail’ to meet their goals.
The antidote to this dysfunction is the creating and maintaining of effective schools that engage and are engaged by their communities and families. What does this local involvement look like? A thousand and one things, like story nights--coordinated by parents and teachers, in which students present their work; parent engagement in discussion about curriculum adoption (which requires an administrative culture open to this); volunteerism to support students in need, not just one’s own children; annual student-led conferences with parents and teachers, or anything that causes parents, staff and students to work together are all examples of the collaborative and relational work that makes for more effective functioning of a school as organization. When this kind of engagement happens, tasks get done, trust increases, and relationships grow better and richer.
Last week was Teacher Appreciation Week, and countless people wrote, posted and tweeted about how much they love teachers. Those were kind and pleasant, but if you want to appreciate your teachers the other 51 weeks of the year, work with them, build relationships with them, and trust them. Your local school will be better off for it.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Education and Technology
Adriene Hill of Market Place (the Public Radio International program) just started what will become a year-long series on technology and education. Started today with a short history of tech's supposed promise for making education so much better.
A most interesting line from today's installment--
The idea was simple. Broadcasting would transform education by making it possible for students to learn from great teachers wherever they were—so long as there was a radio in the classroom.
We've been down this road before. As early as the 1920s, The Society for Visual Education formed to encourage wider spread use of the film strip in education. “Today (1981), the filmstrip is playing an important role in classroom instruction in all types of educational situations. Filmstrips are being used in all sizes of schools, from the small rural school to the large school in urban centers” [LaMond Beatty, The Instructional Media Library, (Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1981), 4].
Change the word “internet” or “computer” for “filmstrip” in this paragraph from Beatty's book, and you could easily find it in numerous articles and books today.
Or take another angle. Suppose you support President Obama's 2013 initiative to establish high speed internet connection in 99% of schools in the next 5 years. Hill's story goes on to point out that the mere presence of radios in rooms, and the commitment by public broadcasters to make educational programs didn't amount to much...the programs weren't very good. But the commercial broadcasters made shows kids wanted to hear (and later see). Same ol' issues about commercial content providers there....
Or think about technology infrastructure (the 99% in 5 years deal). The brilliant Neil Postman had this to say (about technology in general): Even when the problem of the access to technology is solved so that anyone who wishes can have access to technology, there still remains a problem.
For a more thorough explication of what those problems are in education, see chapter 7 of The Normal Accident Theory of Education.
A most interesting line from today's installment--
The idea was simple. Broadcasting would transform education by making it possible for students to learn from great teachers wherever they were—so long as there was a radio in the classroom.
We've been down this road before. As early as the 1920s, The Society for Visual Education formed to encourage wider spread use of the film strip in education. “Today (1981), the filmstrip is playing an important role in classroom instruction in all types of educational situations. Filmstrips are being used in all sizes of schools, from the small rural school to the large school in urban centers” [LaMond Beatty, The Instructional Media Library, (Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1981), 4].
Change the word “internet” or “computer” for “filmstrip” in this paragraph from Beatty's book, and you could easily find it in numerous articles and books today.
Or take another angle. Suppose you support President Obama's 2013 initiative to establish high speed internet connection in 99% of schools in the next 5 years. Hill's story goes on to point out that the mere presence of radios in rooms, and the commitment by public broadcasters to make educational programs didn't amount to much...the programs weren't very good. But the commercial broadcasters made shows kids wanted to hear (and later see). Same ol' issues about commercial content providers there....
Or think about technology infrastructure (the 99% in 5 years deal). The brilliant Neil Postman had this to say (about technology in general): Even when the problem of the access to technology is solved so that anyone who wishes can have access to technology, there still remains a problem.
For a more thorough explication of what those problems are in education, see chapter 7 of The Normal Accident Theory of Education.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Gearing up for the day
It's 7:50, and one colleague is blowing his whistle that sounds eerily like our evacuation alarm and another is retorting with conch blasts--a la Lord of the Flies. Another day in 8th grade paradise.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Book Talk Redux
Julie Anderson--old friend, engaged citizen, public servant--hosted a wonderful evening in support of The Normal Accident Theory of Education. Thanks, Julie.
Picking Nits...
The fine volume on How to be a Gentleman notes that, unless he's an English teacher, a gentleman does not correct others' grammar. Well, I am an English teacher. I was a bit surprised to find this in one of the millions of white papers, working papers, position papers, review papers, etc., about Common Core, sponsored by several highfalutin education organizations. (Go here for the paper).
Strong school culture results faculty and staff who are:
More adaptable to change;
Higher motivation;
More commitment;
More cooperation and collaboration;
Better able to resolve conflicts;
Greater capacity for innovation; and
Effective in achieving goals.
There is something called parallel structure, which this list does not maintain. Read the sentence--from Strong school culture--through to the end of each bullet point, one at a time.)
...faculty and staff who are higher motivation?
More of the bullets don't work than do.
Oh, and never mind the "results faculty." I assume they left out a word there.
Let's give them a pass on the grammar. What does this even say, after all? What is strong school culture? How would we know it when we see it?
I don't mind mistakes...I make plenty of them, and they're good learning devices. I am distressed, however, that the people so adamantly telling us they've got all this figured about with Common Core would make such mistakes.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Book Talk
Thank you to all who came out to hear the first talk on The Normal Accident Theory of Education. This was at Pioneer Middle School, where I teach 8th grade. Thanks, too, to my Superintendent, Kathi Weight, for hosting the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)