Sensitivity to Initial Conditions

There is a concept in the theory of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) that suggests systems are significantly influenced by their initial conditions. Complex Adaptive Systems develop patterns of 'order' that emerge out of the seemingly chaotic 'soup' of interactions between lots and lots of 'agents' (independent agents following 'rules' to guide their behavior). 

Anyone that has been involved with public education can see that the school system is a very complex system. There are a great many rules that guide the behavior of everyone involved (everyone! including parents, teachers, administrators, young people, and the communities in which schools exist).

I've been in many situations over the last 25 years where teachers and administrators were asked, what the future of school 'should be.' Or they were asked, what kinds of things would need to happen to make schools 'ideal.' 

The kinds of answers that were given will not surprise anyone. These answers have been the same or similar with a few variations in almost every setting I've been in. 

The kinds of things that were suggested included:

• community involvement
  
• parent involvement
  
• creativity
  
• personalized learning
  
• problem solving
  
• thinking skills
  
• alternative assessments
  
• choice
• brain-based learning

I could go on - but the point is, when asked, most people want the same or similar things for schools (and for the young people) but why aren't those thing happening? or better said, why aren't those things happening in a systematic and systemwide way (all of these things are happening in little bits somewhere in some school or district - but no where is the kind of schooling we need for young people to be successful in the 21st Century happening in a systemic way).

Why is that? 

I would contend the reason schools and schooling is the way it is - is because of the initial conditions that were present when the idea of free public schooling was conceived. In other words, the patterns established at the early stages of the development of the schooling system are the very same patterns that make it difficult, if not impossible, for schools and schooling to do the things on the list above.

In other posts in this blog I have written about some of the original conditions. 

The free public school system was created to 'school' the 20% of the young people that were too poor to attend a private (meaning a paid) school. The intention for this free public school system was to provide 'the basics' (reading, writing, and arithmetic) so that these poor young people would be good citizens and there would be less crime.

In another recent post the origins of the high school system was discussed. High schools were designed to educate about 5% of the young men in this country so they could make the connection between elementary school and higher education (college). High schools were designed to be 'feeder' schools for colleges.

From a recent article by ASCD Executive Director, Gene Carter: 

This month, as high school students across the United States receive their diplomas, our failure to improve that system will be evident in the number of students who don't. Studies of graduation rates indicate that nearly one-third of high school students drop out before graduating. That means that one student drops out every 26 seconds; between 6,000 and 7,000 drop out every school day; and 1.2 million drop out every year. Among African American and Hispanic students, the graduation rate is about 55 percent, or roughly one in every two students.

Furthermore, the studies raise questions about whether the students who do graduate will be prepared with the problem-solving, critical-thinking, and oral and written communication skills needed to succeed in an increasingly global market—questions that are echoed in the public's perception of high schools as reported in last year's Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll. The poll found that 40 percent of respondents do not think most public school students leave high school prepared for college, while 50 percent think the same students do not leave school prepared to do skilled jobs.

Today the cry is to transform schools to teach 21st Century Skills. These include life and career skills, innovation and learning skills, as well as information, media and technology skills.

It is clear that schools and schooling as we know them have not changed much since their conception. Sensitivity to initial conditions - and the patterns initially established when schools were first implemented - make changing schools very difficult. Even when we know what 'should be done' it still isn't. 

That makes me think that we need to change our thinking about what schools and schooling are, why they exist, and what they should do. Schools and schooling must be re-conceived and re-designed if we are to establish patterns that can be useful and successful now and in the future.

Teachers Have NO Constitutional Right to Free Speech

In several previous posts I have been exploring this idea that public schools are a tool for the Federal Government to 'school' the public in the 'basics' in order to produce a disciplined society (and reduce crime). In one of the articles I read about the origins of the 'free' public school system the author was suggesting the aim of the education is to indoctrinate the public. I have just finished reading an article (link below) that says a teacher has NO constitutional right to express personal opinions (free speech) in the classroom.

Here's a quote from the article:

A teacher's speech is "the commodity she sells to an employer in exchange for her salary," the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in January. "The Constitution does not enable teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the instructions of elected officials."

I wonder how many professional teachers working today would know this? I wonder, if they did know this, if they would say they comply with the law and DO NOT express personal opinions in the classroom?

If I interpret this properly this 'law' says that a teacher must ONLY say what they are approved to say by the local School Board. I presume the local School Board takes their mandates from the State School Board, which in turn takes their cues from the Federal Board of Education.

What does this mean to the anyone that is interested in changing education (or transforming education)?

Here's the article:

Supreme Court denies hearing for fired 'honk for peace' teacher
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer • Tuesday, October 2, 2007
An elementary-school teacher who was dismissed after telling her class on the eve of the Iraq war that "I honk for peace" lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to Deborah Mayer, who had appealed lower-court decisions upholding an Indiana school district's refusal to renew her contract in June 2003. The most-recent ruling, by a federal appeals court in Chicago, said teachers in public schools have no constitutional right to express personal opinions in the classroom.

And, if one is involved in education something like this would again make it seem like the only people that know what is good for young people are the people in charge - not the teacher in the classroom.

Taking this to the extreme, as I have suggested in previous posts, the education system is not set up to teach people to think. It also appears that the system isn't designed for people in the system to think either.

Unintended Consequences

I find it quite interesting that the intended goal for the education system was to provide the poor people in the US a way to learn discipline, order and just enough of the 'basics' (reading, writing, and arithmetic) in order to be good citizens (and reduce crime).

The unintended consequences of creating the free public school system is the dumbing down of the majority of the population rather than improving the lot of the minority of the population. Literacy levels in this country have actually declined since the introduction of free public schooling. Why is that?

I remember reading a book by John Gatto (former teacher of the year) called Dumbing Us Down: the hidden curriculum of compulsory schooling). I'm sorry to say that beyond 'getting it' on a superficial level I really missed the point that John was making.

Schools are designed to confuse, and to 'school' people - not educate them!

Duh. I guess I really am a slow learner. It brings tears to my eyes to re-read some of what he wrote in that book. The book I wanted to write has already been written!

Industrial versus Knowledge Based

In a very early post to this blog I wrote about the hierarchic organizational model and how model is out of sync with the current environment the education system finds itself a part of.

One of the best arguments for reinventing public education is that it is still very much the same as it was when it was designed and it is out of touch with the current world - what to say of the world of tomorrow. The public school system was designed to produce factory workers (as stated previously).

In a recent interview with Edutopia Alvin Toffler explains his point of view about what might need to be done with the public school system. In the article he says, in answer to the question, How does that system fit into a world where assembly lines have gone away?

It doesn't. The public school system is designed to produce a workforce for an economy that will not be there. And therefore, with all the best intentions in the world, we're stealing the kids' future.

In the article he poses several questions

Do I have all the answers for how to replace it? No. But it seems to me that before we can get serious about creating an appropriate education system for the world that's coming and that these kids will have to operate within, we have to ask some really fundamental questions. And some of these questions are scary. For example: Should education be compulsory? And, if so, for who? Why does everybody have to start at age five? Maybe some kids should start at age eight and work fast. Or vice versa. Why is everything massified in the system, rather than individualized in the system? New technologies make possible customization in a way that the old system -- everybody reading the same textbook at the same time -- did not offer.

Some of the answers to these questions might lead us to a system that is customized for each individual and where there is No One Right Answer for public education. In the article he also espouses several ideas I've discussed and will discuss further in future posts - integrating 'school' into life and the community.

To read the entire interview, click here...