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?

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?