|
Root cause of the "teaching systems" problem
Posted by Jack Harich on 12/23/2010
Tim,
Just wanted to say thanks for this review of the past. It puts our discussions in a broader perspective.
You asked: "What a year 2010 has been! Can we not all sense some urgency about teaching systems? What is the fulcrum we are hoping to lean on that lifts political and educational imagination from "teaching basics" and "high-stakes testing" to "teaching problem solving" and "high-stakes performance"? "
Perhaps this will help: "The fulcrum" would be the high leverage point(s) that when pushed on would resolve the root causes of the problem. The problem is the system is in state A, "teaching basics" and "high-stakes testing", instead of state B, "teaching problem solving" and "high-stakes performance."
Thus to answer your fulcrum question we must first answer the "what are the root causes" question. Why is the system in state A? Then we could more intelligently address the question of: What high leverage points exist to move the system to state B?
If one starts with the "what is the fulcrum" question first, the normal result is symptomatic solutions that fail, due to addressing intermediate instead of root causes. This has already happened far too many times.
To help in this discussion, here's my definition of root cause:
A root cause is that portion of a system’s structure that “best” explains why the system’s behavior produces the problem symptoms, rather than some other behavior. Finding a root cause is identical to diagnosing the deepest causes of an illness. If those causes are not treated successfully, the illness will either not go away fully or it will return. Root causes are found by asking a succession of "Why is this happening?" Kaizen-like questions until the root causes are found.
How do you know when to stop? A root cause has five essential identifying requirements: (The first three are from a published paper. The next two are from a paper in progress.)
1. It is clearly a (or the) major cause of the symptoms.
2. It has no worthwhile deeper cause. This allows you to stop asking why at some appropriate point in root cause analysis. Otherwise you may find yourself digging to the other side of the planet.
3. It can be resolved. Sometimes it’s useful to emphasize unchangeable root causes in your model for greater understanding and to avoid trying to resolve them without realizing it. These have only the first two characteristics.
4. It’s resolution will not create bigger problems. Side effects must be considered.
5. There is no better root cause. All alternatives have been considered.
This checklist allows numerous unproductive or pseudo root causes to be quickly eliminated. Requirement 5 is especially difficult to handle.
The important thing is to not stop at intermediate causes. These are plausible and easily found. Working on resolving what are in fact intermediate causes looks productive and feels productive. Intermediate cause solutions, more accurately called symptomatic solutions, may even work for awhile. But until the true root causes are resolved powerful social agents will invariably find a way to delay, circumvent, block, weaken, or even rollback these solutions, because intermediate causes are symptoms of deeper causes. One must strike at the root.
So, does anyone have a hypothesis for the root causes of the "teaching systems" problem?
Or lacking that, does anyone have suggestions for how the root causes could be found?
Happy holidays,
Jack Harich
PS - This may help. It appears the bulk (about 60%) of the influence on children's education does not occur in schools. It occurs elsewhere. This recent article: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/1111_superman_ravitch.aspx said:
"Hanushek has released studies showing that teacher quality accounts for about 7.5–10 percent of student test score gains. Several other high-quality analyses echo this finding, and while estimates vary a bit, there is a relative consensus: teachers statistically account for around 10–20 percent of achievement outcomes. Teachers are the most important factor within schools.
"But the same body of research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers. According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens."
Thus quality of schools is a low leverage point. Something exists outside of schools that's the real source (the root cause) of the problem. Fix it and the result will feedback to automatically improve schools. This runs against conventional wisdom.
Here are two related articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/education/09nowhere.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/movies/10race.html?ref=education
The first article (long) covers the "Race to Nowhere" and "Waiting for Superman" movies and intuitively tries to find the causes of the problem.
The second article (short) covers just the "Race to Nowhere" movie. It says: "...the film’s medical professionals share Ms. Abeles’s alarm and her awareness that blame, if it exists, is systemic and with little current incentive to change." The word "systemic" is the key. That means the whole system. Schools are a small part of that system. Schools are where the symptoms of the rest of the system appear. They are not the cause.
|
