Educational Policy and Systems Theory

As mentioned previously, I have been doing a great deal of thinking about systems theory. So, when I came across this blog about four days ago, I realized that now I really have something to write about:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/alone-in-the-classroom-why-teachers-are-too-isolated/255976/#.T5GwzLtxmpQ.mailto
This is a blog related to teacher isolation and collaboration. In it, Mirel and Golden relay the statistic that only 3% of teachers' time is spent in collaboration. While I agree that this is a travesty, their solution to the problem is to create national curriculum (or uniform curricular units nationwide) which would serve to make collaboration easier across the board. This is a leap beyond the current work pertaining to common core standards, which are not curriculum in and of themselves. The idea is that if teachers all have the same curriculum, then they will all be working on exactly the same lessons at the same time, and that should make collaboration simpler.
They also "demerit" merit pay, saying that it will create a culture of competition between teachers which will decrease collaboration even further and create more isolation, leading to teacher attrition (departure) and lower the quality of teaching. This is an example of systems thinking, where long term results are evaluated based on the current motions and trends in the system. Incidentally,  I agree with their assessment of merit pay and its outcome. However, their first "solution" has multiple shortcomings as well.
For one, creating a uniform curriculum nationwide does not address the problem of teacher collaboration. Collaboration usually happens at the level of the school between teachers who are already working on a similar pacing guide, curriculum or common unit themes. The fact that collaboration is not occurring is therefore not coupled to a disconnect in the timing of unit themes or lesson plans.
Secondly, a movement toward a common curriculum will restrict teachers who are using community based activities and lessons to teach students in culturally specific ways which are more relevant, well rounded and socially minded than the detached, place independent, content driven curricular units which will be created by people in federal offices many thousands of miles away from the communities in which the teachers are working. This lack of contextual knowledge strips the teacher of the rich interaction which takes place between teacher, student and community. Even stuffing social justice ideals into a common curriculum will not create a culturally specific and community minded model of teaching. It is simply too detached and too ignorant to do so.
Finally, and in my mind, the most sinister effect of a common curriculum is that by creating a uniform curriculum which is taught and enforced nationwide will ensure that diversity of knowledge is lost. All students will be indoctrinated with all of the same knowledge in exactly the same manner of conformity. What will happen to universities when the students graduate with a unified understanding and no alternative perspectives? What kind of educational model are we establishing by creating a bounded area of knowledge and disregarding all other epistemologies, viewpoints, subjects and disciplines? More importantly, who are the elite decision-makers who have the power to determine what is being taught nationwide and how that teaching should take place within diverse communities?

There are other systemic effects of adopting a national curriculum. Can you think of any of the problems associated with such a measure? What would some outcomes - positive or negative - be on education?

Systems thinking: Bioecological Systems Theory

I have been doing quite a bit of thinking about systems theory lately. Not only for this class, but for others as well. Lately, I have come across someone named Bronfenbrenner (you should check him out), who started the idea of Bioecological Systems Theory.

This theory reveals the individual as being embedded in a microsocial system (those factors closest to him or her) and a macrosocial system (those environmental factors which put input pressure on the individual - such as geographic constraints, culture, language, etc.), as well as a chronosystem (timing and temporal perceptions). It is a great example of the systems thinking which we have been discussing in class.

Here is a link to some information about the theory:
http://pt3.nl.edu/paquetteryanwebquest.pdf

Do you have an example of the Bioecological System at work or life? Does this add to your understanding of systems theory?

Intergroup Influences

This chapter really kind of tied it all together for me. I have been trying to get the last three paradoxes to crystallize, and for some reason they still seemed too...complex...contradictory....to visualize. However, I think I can now grasp some of the practical implications of the paradoxes in a more meaningful way.
In the context that interests me (schools and school systems), I can see the paradox of scarcity. This framing pattern goes on between schools, districts, and even departments within a single school. The discordance which can lead to group cohesion (p 190) is visible along the administrator vs. teacher lines. In extremely dysfunctional schools (where I am sad to say that I have worked), this leads to endless conflict between the two groups, with administrators blaming teachers for their unscrupulous use of resources and teachers blaming administrators for not supplying the resources necessary to meet the basic needs of their classrooms.
Smith and Berg pay homage to Howard Shein at the bottom of p. 191 when they mention conflicts in values and goals. Within a school (where it is assumed by outsiders that the goals are the same for teachers and administrators), these value conflicts persist. Commonly, I see it as a result of attempting to reconcile outside demands and priorities with the needs of students and personal meanings associated with their respective positions. This can also be explosive, since what results has the potential of becoming a culture war between the two camps. Sadly, who pays for this is the students.
Smith and Berg portray these external conflicts as being neutral - we can't say that any one group is more right or wrong to adhere to their values or decide what boundaries to give up or stand firm to. I am very interested in the practical applications of these paradoxes, now that they seem to be pointing toward practical applications (for awhile there I was questioning the relevance). I may be reading the rest of the book out of personal interest now, instead of out of respect for the subject.
Do you have any practical applications of the paradoxes? Can you imagine how they can be used or referenced if you were trying to resolve conflict within an organization?

Intelligent Decision Making

I found this section (chapter 9) valuable on many levels. For one, I started imaging how a board would effectively make decisions within an emerging non-profit - for example, which projects to create and which funders to involve and what evaluative tools to use, etc. I was seeing some of the working teams which I have been on which have been hasty to enact decision making processes and have then failed in implementation. "It is psychologically easier to adopt a quick solution strategy rather then to be patient, listen and search for collaborative solutions" (p. 161). I had never read or thought about the connection between decision making and implementation in this way before; and this definitely allowed me to think about how that connection plays out in the achievement of the goals (or the failure of implementation). Have you seen this happen in your workplace or in another setting?
I am fascinated by the concepts of group polarization and the Ringi Technique used for decision making. Group polarization could help explain extremism in many settings - critically important in understanding politics both locally and globally. This is obvious when someone who is not really religious becomes very religious within an outspoken religious group. It is also visible in cliques, when you have people enacting a stereotype to an extreme because that is the way to "fit in." Can you think of examples of group polarization? How do you think it has played out in history or is currently playing out in politics?
On the Ringi Technique, I tend to think that this could be a powerful way to avoid confrontation and to alleviate animosity when it comes to controversial issues. Also I am sure that it is not entirely anonymous, it would at least distance those members from each other who might otherwise be explosive in a group setting. However, I can also see that it might hinder the growth of the team in handling conflict. Do you see this as an avoidance strategy and if so, is it good for group development? Does it hinder the "process gain" (p. 148) which is the result of group decision making? 

Paradoxes of Engaging

I was able to easily recognize two examples of the paradoxes of engaging (Smith and Berg, 1987, Chapter 6), one from our class and another from my job. During the first weeks of class, we were told to write the "Where I'm From" assignment, and, if we were comfortable with it, to post it to BlackBoard. I initially thought, well, that's fine, I will do it but probably not post it. I just couldn't imagine sharing it with a class group. Smith and Berg point out "the most natural thing to do is reveal only those things that we are sure will be accepted" (p. 112). On the day that the assignment was due, I went to blackboard and saw that all three of my team-members had posted theirs. Not only did I enjoy reading them, I realized that in order to be a part of the group, I better post mine as well. So I did. This allowed the process of trust to begin among our group members. Did you encounter any examples of Smith and Berg's paradoxes the first few weeks of class? If so, which ones?
The other example is also one of disclosure, but it comes from my work. This time, it pertains to feedback, which is the benefit of having a group to begin with. As Smith and Berg point out, positive feedback does not lead to learning. Negative feedback has the potential to lead to learning. At work, I lead professional development groups (learning communities) with teachers. It is clear when leading the groups how few people are accustomed to giving or accepting feedback which is anything less than glorious. My big challenge to is create an environment of trust and disclosure which allows the teachers to learn how to give and accept feedback which leads to learning. This means making them comfortable with vulnerability and criticism. I do something similar to the example on pages 122-125, where we share common fears and lay groundwork for trust to be built. I use modelling, protocols and sharing to carry this out. The group spends about 90% of the time talking and I listen and facilitate. This works very well with small groups,  but I am not sure how to scale it up to be successful for a large group. Have you ever had to lead a large group to face and move beyond fears of disclosure and trust? How did you do it? If not, how do you imagine that you would do it?