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?

Tacit Knowledge

After Thursday's discussion in class, I am somewhat consumed with trying to sketch out what I think is going on with tacit and explicit knowledge. Of course, I was wondering, why is a focus on tacit knowledge even important in our understanding of organizational learning? I came up with a few arguments:
1) Although we all acknowledge that the whole is not made up of the sum of the parts, the collective is made up of individuals and the individual plays a critical role in the assimilation of knowledge and culture within the organization.
2) One person's tacit could be another's explicit, and vice versa. In other words, what I know that we know, you might not know we know, and what you know that we know, I might not know we know. Since a major focus in our study is making the tacit explicit, this is a key to understanding how that process can be carried out (i.e. via member contributions and collaboration).
3) If we are to assume that organizations can have collective memory, then we imply that organizations have tacit collective knowledge, and anything which we learn about individual tacit knowledge might hold true also for collective knowledge. Therefore, finding out what tacit individual knowledge is could help us build a model for studying tacit collective knowledge.
Another reason which I am working on is the fact that tacit "knowledge" might not always be accurate or true, since it is a subjective construct. Therefore, what do we do if tacit meaning structures are found to be erroneous? To what extent do erroneous tacit meaning structures play a role in collective learning (or lack thereof)?