GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Deepening the Dialogue

Changing The System Vs. Systemic Change

Marc Waxman, who is opening a charter school in Denver, and Stacey Gauthier, principal of Renaissance Charter High School, are corresponding about school policy. Read their entire exchange.

Stacey,

Thanks so much for your letter. In your last post, you write:

I would like to ask you for a moment to pretend that we had the advantage of knowing all we know right now about the school systems we work in and we were starting from scratch to set-up the best infrastructure to support a system of great schools.

You ask eight specific, intelligent, and important questions. And your post ends with:

So, I am tossing this ball to you. You now have the ability to build a school system from scratch knowing all you know now. What would you do?

In answering your questions I would explain my ideas on how to change the system. I certainly have lot of ideas about this. But when I read your letter I couldn’t help but think about the difference between focusing on changing the system versus the idea of systemic change. In my professional life, I am all about changing the system, and I spend a lot of time and energy on it. But in my intellectual life I think about systemic change.

Earlier this month I attended the 20th Anniversary Summit for Teach for America. Speakers talked of the potential for “real change” in education and the need for “revolution.” As with so much in education, these terms have very different meanings to different people. To me there is an irony here; many segments of the education community view Teach For America and affiliated groups as significantly outside the norm, yet the  “change” and “revolution” TFA and aligned groups support actually are not very significant when considering what systemic change would look like.

For another blog I wrote a post titled “Education Reform or Revolution.” Below is a long quote from it in which I discuss piecemeal change vs. paradigm change. In this context piecemeal change is equivalent to changing the system and paradigm change is equivalent to systemic change.

There are two major types of change – piecemeal and paradigm change. Alvin Toffler posits that there have been three great waves of change: from hunter/gatherer to agrarian, then to the industrial revolution, and now to the information revolution. When there are great changes in society there are paradigm changes in societal systems (family, business, etc. including education).

The change to an industrial society led to the industrialization of schools that mirrored many of its underpinnings; bureaucratic organization, autocratic leadership, centralized control, adversarial relationships, compliance, conformity, compartmentalization, etc.

The needs of an information age society are much different; team organization, shared leadership, autonomy with accountability, cooperative relationships, initiative, diversity, networking, holism, etc. If these are indeed the emerging societal needs, and they are clearly different than those of an “industrial” society, then we need a new educational system — a new paradigm — that aligns with those needs. … The types of reform we are currently focused on today really only fit the “piecemeal” definition of change. And it all fits within the current box —let’s call it the industrial model of education box. If we believe there is major societal change occurring, then nothing less than paradigm change is necessary.

Additionally, there is another idea that supports the need for systemic change. Over the past 50 years our society (specifically American society) has become increasingly apathetic; it’s trending to more inequality, not less; it does less to help those within it who need help the most; it has become increasingly focused on the “winners” at the expense of the many; it favors assimilation over diversity.

Piecemeal changes to an educational system supporting this societal trend will at best leave us with the status quo and, at worst, reinforce the increasing divisions within our society. On the other hand, paradigm change in education can be part of a co-evolution with society, supporting it and being supported by it, by moving from a system designed for sorting students to one designed for helping all children reach their potential.

I strongly believe that we need more than piecemeal change — we need systemic change; we need paradigmatic change. And, this change will only happen once we have some difficult, but important, conversations about the purpose of education in our society. A new system starts with this question: “What is the purpose of education?” and goes from there.

Stacey — I often think about how we as school leaders within the system work to change the system in the short term while also working towards real revolution, to paradigm change. What do you think?

Marc

  • http://bubbler.wordpress.com/ Mark

    Marc, I love this discussion you two are having. I think your delineation between piecemeal and paradigmatic change is a constructive distinction to make. However, I think we have to be cautious when we make decisions deliberately targeted at systemic change in a revolutionary sense. If we make such decisions in a manner that does not take into account how we will sustainably implement such changes, they could end up in some cases more damaging than beneficial. I think there has to be some combination of the two–in other words, we have to work both within current systems, and outside–or beyond–current systems. In the context of the field of education, too many changes have been sought to have been implemented from outside of schools. But they need to occur most fundamentally from within for that change to be authentic and meaningful.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, but the factory is alive and well, and it resides in the so-called postmodern, information age workplace.

    A brief perusal of HR and management literature, to say nothing of actual management behavior, will show that despite the buzzwords about the disappearance of bureaucracy, centralized control (and can any teacher working in a public school system under mayoral control seriously consider their environment less bureaucratic and centralized than before?) , teamwork, etc. the modern workplace is just as hierarchical and oppressive as before. The only real difference is that line workers (aka office workers, and, in the vision of ed deformers, teachers, as well) are closely monitored, every keystroke being overseen and monitored for productivity and conformity. What else is Doug Lemov’s pseudo-scientific, time and motion study-based “taxonomy” of teaching but this applied to the classroom?

    The hostile takeover of public education is running on two parallel tracks: increased oversight and prescriptivesness, coupled with increased fragmentation and destabilization, of the public schools, going along with capitalizing and test-marketing of publicly-funded private charter schools, which will ultimately be consolidated into large chains, whether for-profit or nominally non-profit (but with immense fees/salaries for management). Needless to say, there will be tremendous insider-dealing, networking among like-minded people from similar backgrounds (TFA/KIPP/Uncommon Schools/New Teacher Project anyone?) regarding management/privatization of infrastructure, vending, consultancies, etc.

    Teachers should be highly skeptical of any education model that uses the rhetoric of change and self-actualization (all of it carefully crafted by industrial and organizational psychologists, management consultants and various other “change agents”) to reduce professional autonomy and remove education from public oversight.

    It is a common management ploy to put people into “teams” to work out the details of implementing decisions the premises and parameters of which have been pre-determined by those in control. This gives the illusion of real participation and control, while real “systemic change” is governed by those at the top, whose agendas go unspoken and unquestioned.

  • http://bubbler.wordpress.com/ Mark

    Mfiorillo, I’m a bit skeptical about this brief perusal of management literature that you suggest leading to the conclusion that the modern workplace is hierarchical and oppressive. First of all, nearly any organizational model is hierarchical in nature, whether natural or manmade. It’s simply an efficient method of organizing things. That something is organized in a hierarchical manner does not necessarily mean it is oppressive.
    What offices are you basing your vision of “line workers” upon? I’m sure such places exist. But that is not some pre-ordained vision nor some conspiracy that people at the top have determined to be more efficient to their agendas. All people “at the top” generally care about are making money. If they discover (and many of them have) that they can make more money if they allow for more creativity and collaboration in their workforce, then they will make it so. Any office that runs in the manner you have portrayed is most likely not a very successful business in today’s economy.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Follow GothamSchools

RSS

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

17 comments so far today

Our Twitter Updates

Archives

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031