|
a modest proposal
Posted by Dexter Chapin on 12/19/2004
I have been lurking on the edge of this conversation for a while. At the risk of making us all a little more self-conscious I will tell you that yesterday, I went back over the last several months and did a sort of network analysis of what has been talked about. It was a fascinating thing to do; talk about an autopoietic structure. But that’s not what I want to ask about.
What I want to ask about is the possibility of getting any kind of resolution to the issues being talked about: how to implement SD in the classroom, the possibility of educational reform, and the nature of teaching, within the boundaries that have been set.
To give you some background: I wrote my dissertation in the late 70’s on the question, “If you want to change society, are “schools” the place to put your resources?”. I put “schools” in quotes because I am, at heart, an anthropologist and I was interested in a cross cultural perspective. When I started, my plan was to use an SD model to link theory and research from a broad range of disciplines. My bibliography included, among many others, Allport, Ashby, Bateson, Bourdieu, Clignet, Dewey, Maslow, Odum, Sinnott, Thom, Touraine, Von Bertalanffy, and Wiener. I was defeated in my goal to create an SD model. At that time there were no PC’s; the only show in town was a card-reading mainframe using Dynamo. With apologies to Dr. Forrester, it was a nightmare. I ended up using causal loop diagrams. I’m not sure it was a great piece of work and I’m pretty sure the only extant copy is in my bookshelves.
I tell you all this simply to suggest that the boundaries of all the recent discussions have been too narrow. If we are going to talk about the implementation of SD in the classroom, or the process of school reform or the nature of teaching, we have to broaden the boundaries of the discussion to include at the very least the cultural context.
For instance, I would love to know what connections exist between the rise to preeminence of the MBA degree and the rise of K-12 testing. I suspect but am not sure that it is no accident the president with an MBA is the proponent of NCLB.
We have two mythic, intellectual archetypes in the U.S.; Franklin and Jefferson. One is the model for academic intellectualism; the other a model for the NASCAR fan. One is a part of childhood; the other is rarely, if ever, mentioned. What is the impact of those archetypes on K-12’s in general, and more specifically on the implementation of SD?
We need to ask why teachers resist SD approaches. Some folks in Texas developed a “Concerns Based Adoption Model” that basically asked teachers what were they afraid of and then responded to those fears. A lot of really good ideas are rejected because of really good reasons, at least from the perspective of those asked to implement the really good ideas. It is not enough to think that SD is a good idea. We have to ask what elements it displaces and why those elements are there in the first place.
And then we have to ask questions about teaching and learning. What are the constants, independent of tools such as SD, in good teaching? I think there are three constants, all modified by the developmental stage of the students.
The first is about the use of power. The second is about relationship. The third is curricular: keep it short; keep it interesting; keep it relevant; keep it integrated; and keep it fun.
I wonder if the three issues mentioned earlier; how to implement SD in the classroom, the possibility of educational reform, and the nature of teaching, are all the same question at different levels of the system.
Therefore, while I do not know if it is feasible, I propose that this list somehow begin putting together an SD model of schools and schooling at a global level. To do this, we would need to have a moderator serving as a gatekeeper but the structure and contents could be debated on the list. I cannot be moderator because that requires a pot-full more computer power and expertise than I have available. It would need to be in a format accessible to all; perhaps an early Stella.
But, what if it worked? Think of the learning we would all experience and the expertise and guidance available. Done well, the note boxes would make it almost self explanatory. It would grow like Topsy; driven by the interests and issues of the day and in that sense be autopoietic and relevant. Over time it could become a tremendous resource not just preaching to the convinced but attracting others as well. And, again done well, it would bridge the gap between the Jefferson’s and the Franklin’s.
Does anyone else think it’s a good idea?
|
