Came across this quote from Clay Shirky in a Tweet by Jay Rosen:
“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
What are the problems that schools still solve that they are engaged in preserving? What are the new problems that schools don’t solve that they don’t want to deal with?
Just wondering.
Inequity.
Schools are supposed to level the playing field, so that everyone has a chance to be a fully-functioning member of society. But the system also creates powerful winners and losers, both within individual schools by ranking and sorting everyone as early as possible and in the larger structure by having school funding act as a parental meritocracy where wealthy districts have well-funded schools.
So, what will make total equity possible? National standards? ;0)
Clearly, schools are not now solving this problem of inequity. The question is, can they without a rebooting of the system?
Well, I do think that the inequity of education funding is huge. When Philly spends $10,000 less per child than the wealthy suburb that is just across City Line Ave, that’s a problem. As Alfie Kohn says, “I will believe that money doesn’t matter in education when rich people stop spending so much on it.”*
But we – as a society – do it by design. We create education funding that is a parental meritocracy. If your parents have money, you get well-funded schools.
That’s why the Obama / Duncan trope that “Education is the civil rights issue of our generation” rings so hollow. If that were true, they’d take on the state-level formulas that often make property taxes the primary vehicle for education funding. It is a guarantee to reinforce a more rigid class-system in the US when we do that.
It preserves the problem that it claims to fix — leveling the playing field for all.
*Some Children Left Behind – great book of essays.
What are the problems that schools still solve that they are engaged in preserving? Maintaining the ‘status quo bias‘.
What are the new problems that schools don’t solve that they don’t want to deal with? Compelling change.
In the ‘race to the top’ to make their schools the best they can be, schools inevitably seem to leave so many behind. How shortchanged are our gifted students because they are forced to sit through classes that are dumbed down to teach to the kids who can’t or won’t work as hard as they do? In my school, we focus so much on the kids who are just below proficient on state assessments that the majority suffer for it.
That sounds like the illness “status,” like something you catch that makes everyone else sick. How do we stop this downward spiral? I live in rural MN, and can relate because of our demographics.
its basically a case of hegemony. We are are so entrenched in our way of doing things that we can’t change. We have been talking about radically shifting the way we do education (think about Dewy), yet when have we made the change?
Too fearful of legal issues
Too fearful of financial issues
Too fearful of our own contract
Too fearful to put students at the center and to take us off the stage (teachers)…
Too full of our own hubris to admit that we too might be part of the problem.
Parents too fearful that school looks different then when they were in school (worked for them)
Legislatures too fearful of their constituents.
Thus we stay the same and force students to move from room to room every 45 or 55 or 75 or whatever number of minutes to explore a new topic in isolation of the others.
There are rare exceptions… unfortunately as hard as I try… I am not much of an exception because I too am deeply rooted and inculturated into our education hegemony.
Schools continue to solve the problem of moving kids like an assembly line through a process we have called “education”. Our society is so entrenched in seeing this process as a “means to an end” that we have misplaced the focus to preparing kids for that supposed “end”. Inequity is one of the most predominant issues we must face.
Many schools are not solving the problem that kids are unique individuals with many strengths that school should help them discover. It’s time to forgo the cookie cutter model and develop each child to his/her fullest potential.
Right…one of the “problems” to which schools were a solution is preparation for a workforce for industry jobs. Is that still a “problem” that schools need to address?
No, it’s not a problem schools need to now address. What I was trying to say is that schools must now “fix” this problem that they are oriented in the wrong direction. Schools are now needing to address how to prepare students for a life that requires innovation, critical thinking and social skills.
some staff at my school were just talking about this yesterday and today!
It seems that it’s easier to let students sit idle in down time, rather than organize a structured learning class, that may require the school to pay an additional, what, .16 FTE to do it?
even if abandoning the cookie cutter model means recognizing some students are ready to take on a career at 18 and not go to college?
Or that we might be perpetrating inequity by not pushing all kids to achieve the college dream, even if they are clearly a) not cut out for it or b) not interested in it?
Inequity will not be solved by public education alone. There is a certain level of social stratification that is necessary in order to spur one to self-improvement or recognize and accept a place in life with satisfaction and peace. Rather, we should shift our focus from “high value/low value” professions or occupations to recognizing an equitable value system whereby one does not feel the need to justify his or her decision to become a landscaper, fireman, doctor, teacher, or poet simply because some of these careers are considered “better” than others.
The motivations for a therapist to cure his/her patient are certainly conflicted.
The ongoing struggle with assessment is an interesting area in which to ask this question. Metrics are an important force for improvement—as long as you’re measuring the right things. In what ways is the assessment industry preserving the problem in light of from everything from the SAT to NCLB requirements?
There’s probably another answer, in the spirit of John Taylor Gatto, involving an educational system built to suit the needs of the industrial revolution.
The only way you break out of these patterns is to have space to innovate. It’s how the United States ascended as a world power.
Originally the school system was setup to provide a large pool of interchangeable factory workers who knew basic math, reading and writing, and could follow directions.
Now the system is setup so is can babysit kids while their parents work, and to provide employment and retirement to millions of people.
Which do you suppose a politician in Washington DC wants:
a. A intelligent, inquisitive member of society who will not just believe everything they are told
or
b. A sheep-like person who has a blinding acceptance of mediocrity and who is more concerned with Reality TV than on who is running the country.
I’m just asking. These are the people who control the Education system.
I think if anything, schools serve to remove “distractions” from childrens’ lives, so they have a somewhat higher chance on doing stuff that somewhat helps in developing their intellect.
Just consider what they would be doing if they would not have to go to school: They’d probably play outside more, play more video games, play with other stuff. Play, play, play basically.
So the school system is based on the assumption that the play children choose is not necessarily the best way to enhance their skills in such a way they’ll be able to contribute to society later on in life. I don’t know if this assumption has been proven to be true. I can imagine however that nowadays, a child could be fully be “caught” by video games, and solely develop video gaming skills. After only having played video games (and ate and slept) when reaching adulthood, he/she may not be well-prepared for the job market.
Question remains: Will children, when let free, be sucked up by video games? Will some? Will all? Will many?
When not considering forced attending of school, you could also say that schools offer children yet another game to play: The game of school. I don’t think it’s a very fun game though. Game designers have a much better grasp of what motivates people, what is “fun” . I think it mainly comes down to providing the appropriate amount/kind of challenge based on the player’s current level of development.
But Meryn, don’t you think that schools also serve as distractions from reality in some ways? What if we were better able to expose children to a worldwide community that learned along with them, but in other countries?
I feel that many students are not given that chance to understand the international scene and what their skillsbuilding means for their future work live and college experience.
Douglas, I agree, but I think its outside the scope of answering the question put forward by Will. I just tried to give my idea about what problem(s) schools (purport to) solve. There are likely about an infinite ways in which a typical school system (American or otherwise) could be improved. But I thought it was very smart of Will to go back to the basics, by asking why schools need to exist in the first place. Perhaps they don’t.
As Jay Rosen, quoted by will said: “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.†I personally do not think that the people making part of the institution (n case of the school system: teachers and such) do it out of selfishness. I think most of the time, they honestly can’t look beyond the way society has functioned for such a long time. Children preparing themselves for a top-grade career, without any formal education? “Impossible!” “Unthinkable!” Kids voluntary choosing to learn, if only through play? “No way!”
Now I’m not the kind of person who would propose doing away with schools altogether (at least not at this moment in time), but this kind of thinking, posing these kind of questions is IMO very important.
Your point is well-taken and I do appreciate the clarification. I think what your comment points out, and what Rosen is pointing out is the same kind of impetus towards disruption put forward by Christensen in the book “Disrupting Class.” He argues that no corporation can accomodate the disruption incubated within its ranks. The purpose of the disruption is to bring innovation, but the purpose of a corporation or entity that has a specific agenda is to keep to that agenda. The issue, I think, is that the politically run and bureaucratically administered schools have a very very broad mandate to educate, but they don’t, unfortunately, use innovation to change up what that means. Do you know what I mean?
It’s like I used to work for this company that said they were a “business media and information provider.” But they were very limited in action, despite that very broad definition. Oddly, within the scope of that broad definition, it was hard to get an administrator or an executive to O.K. any innovation that was a change in how they had always done things. There was a great fear that disruption would lead to destruction.
People working within a solid framework will often worry that competition or asynchronous alignments will bring it crashing down like a house of cards. I think in these cases, they are overlooking great opportunities for growth.
Again, I see your point and I appreciate it.
How would we ease this anxiety?
“How would we ease this anxiety?” Storytelling. 🙂 But I believe that’s the cure for about all ills, at least the stubborn psychological ones. 😉
Compulsory schooling has only been around for less than 200 years. Before this, kids would play amongst themselves until they were ready (or needed) to work. They would become an apprentice or continue on with the family work.
Compulsory schooling came into effect only when society needed a mass-produced workforce to create mass-produced products. The schooling system was built around this societal organization. Evidently, society changed but the school system did not. It became an institution (see on how institutions are created) as mentionned by Will that wanted to perpetuate itself through time more than solve a problem (just like any other institution).
Another good read on schooling in the US is . We must look at society in general in order to understand the school system.
Douglas, I actually only noticed now that Will in fact asked two questions. (I read his post much to quickly probably.) That would make the issues you raised within scope.
I think I’d sum it up by that I think that schools generally fail to instill an “adaptive” mindset into children. Schools are way to predictable. It’s perfect if you can expect the kind of jobs available, and the work making part of these jobs to be equally predictable. Problem is that nowadays, through constant changes caused by things like outsourcing, new technologies (especially for communication/collaboration), automation, mechanization and changes in consumer preferences the nature of work changes faster than ever. Faster than any system can keep up. It’s hard enough for a person to keep up with the changes in their field themselves.
Adaptive mindset: “The ability to keep up with changes in environment relevant to one’s personal well-being and one’s value to society.” ? Something like that.
I think we are in agreement on many things. You should follow me on Twitter @Douglascrets and I will follow you if you are on it.
It also serves to pressure and provide accountability. And an easy way for parents to track children’s development, expressed in grades. They can talk to their children about their low grades, instead of having to know themselves what kind of stuff to ask them to know if they’re making any (and the “age appropriate”) progress.
Later on, grades also help as a “signaling device” for people. They can use their grades to “prove” a certain amount of skill in certain areas, to enter a next level of education, or to get a job.
Teacher supervision also removes the need for a nanny. And you’ll be quite sure your kids won’t be smoking pot or drinking alcohol at least while they’re inside the classroom.
Interesting..
…a cohort of teachers are all in a similar discussion across the pond… in the Emerald Isle!
Historically, education/instruction had little to do with formation of large(r) school districts.
Historically large(r) school districts formed for same reason as other highly centralized organizations – to solve the problem of scarcity (or high costs — both time & money — of goods and services).
Transportation was once expensive — school districts spread cost over more students/families.
Contracting with teachers — large school districts can contract with teachers with expertise in multiple subjects; more difficult for a small group of students/families.
Critical mass of students for teachers — teachers could not earn enough teaching just a handful of students; larger school districts brought together enough students to pay teachers.
Meeting locations — education used to have to happen in a specific place; cheaper for large districts to build those meeting places (spread cost of place over more students/families).
Purchasing text books — books used to be very expensive; large school districts had better purchasing power.
Administrative reporting/processing — expensive for individual schools to file reports, process payroll, etc. Less expensive to spread costs.
Etc. Old institutional model was all about economies of scale; finding efficiencies in operations, management, logistics, and maintenance.
And what impact SHOULD technology have on redfining the solutions listed above? (Just trying to seed some new thoughts..) With Technology, an individualized learning plan isn’t that hard to create, manage & accomplish as long as the surrounding system is prepared to support it.
Given what you say about school districts, would you conclude that:
school districts are an economic solution and the time for them has passed or is passing?
I have been thinking of this lately. I have been thinking if cloud computing and the organizational use of other types of tech devices can actually change the shape and size of school districts.
It feels to me that people’s anxieties about using technology is in part enhanced by realizing that tech can diminish and erode the huge blob of bureaucracy and budget waste that school districts have become.
Would love to have your thoughts, or reactions to that.
Hmmm….so if hospitals need us to be sick, then schools need us to be stupid.
Or hospitals need us to realize we are sick, then schools need us to realize we are studpid.
Either way, a depressing way to start the day.
Defining what well educated means is a little like defining what is obscene. I know it when I see it. Until we as a society can decide on what the real definition is, I think the standard approach will continue. Schools often do a really good job of beating the desire to learn out of students instead of the other way around.
That was an interesting post, but I don’t really think a lot of those things are happening.
Creativity is not diminishing. The social conversation is expanding.
However, what might be happening is that certain segments of society are not engaging on the web or through social computing in a way that connects them with the rest of the culture. In that case, it may seem that cultural values are diminishing. It may seem. But let be be the finale of seem.
Further engagement with other communities would show you that the web is a rich and lively place of debate and cultural growth.
What’s the Problem that Schools Solve?
While there are lots of truths in the discussions, a slight shift is necessary for a school to be a school. Maybe not seeing students and learning as problems would be a good start.
The public school system in the US, imo, has always been the solution for the problem of having to work for a living. So if the factory and assembly line approach to education produced workers for the factory jobs, what should education look like now that there aren’t factory jobs to go to? Or for that matter, hi tech or engineering jobs to go to either? Now that the whole model of “what we do” in US society has been turned on its head (i.e. getting a “good” education so that you can get a “good” job so that you can own a home, acquire some wealth, and retire) because there are so few “good” jobs out there and more education for jobs that don’t exist simply isn’t the solution. I don’t know what the entry ticket to earning a living is going to be but I don’t think there will be a 1:1 link to education. A few years ago, I envisioned a world where everyone had access to high quality education through PLE’s and other online resources and we all moved seamlessly from profession to profession improving and adding to our skills along the way and developing our true potentials to the fullest. But now that there are already so many highly trained, highly skilled, and unemployed professionals for each occupation out there already, I don’t see education as being the solution to the problem of how to earn a living anymore.