Social Cohesion - The Dark Side

A page from the book of John Taylor Gatto - or at least the sort of ideas he represents. I can't handle much more than a page, since the guy is pretty wild, but I do find it useful to keep an eye on what he writes and says.

In my previous blog entry, I put in writing some thoughts about mild forms of indoctrination that instill a sense of a common cultural background and identity. The main message there was that for such mild indoctrination, kindergarten is enough, and TV is more than enough. Much more than enough actually, but that's a different issue.

One can see that some forms of stricter indoctrination do require years of work, conducted by professionals. For example, to create the type of religious zeal that enables a person to become a walking bomb. For such strict indoctrination, it is very useful to remove people from their traditional environment - families and neighbors - and effectively replace one social context for another. What takes the time and professional effort is not learning a culture - we do that effortlessly at home and at kindergarten. What takes all that effort is unlearning a culture and a nature.

This can actually be a useful sign: If in order to create social cohesion, an establishment need to remove kids from their families, and let professionals work on them for years, it means that the establishment is working very hard at erasing an existing culture, tradition or nature. This is grounds for suspicion.

We can get a sense of what needs to be erased and what needs to be built by looking at some basic differences between people going into the education system, and people coming out of it. Let's go for a few rhetorical questions about the differences between those going into and out of school:

• Members of which group tend to assume learning something new is fun?
  
  
• Which ones are more likely to ask questions about something they don't understand?
  
  
• Which group tends to be more creative in solving problems?
  
  
• Which is more likely to try something they are not sure they can do, and which tends to be so self-conscious about failure, that they avoid going where they haven't gone before?
  
  
• Which group spends more time posturing, and which spends more time doing what they like, regardless of what others may say?

There are more questions, even more sickening, but the picture is quite clear: It takes years to make a peg forget it is square, and start being used to the idea of a round hole.

To remove doubt or and preempt silly attacks: I am not speaking against learning, teaching or even schooling. The problems I describe seem to appear with centrally-controlled industrialized schooling. By nature such a schooling system is not able - nor very interested - to accommodate individual or local needs.

It may be argued that this system creates a more stable and predictable society, with a healthy consumer market. "Docile" may be the word. This may be true, but I can't accept docility as a goal for my own children. I want them to have a life more meaningful for them. And to keep my integrity, I wish your kids the same.

Social Cohesion?

A while ago I was thinking of different arguments for and against schooling as it is being done today. Most arguments defending the state controlled mass education are easily refuted - they seem to come from the answers we got as pupils when asking "why do we need to study this?"

We got the answers as kids from a powerful authority figure, and got used to thinking they are right. Again, most of them collapse under scrutiny. There was one that I couldn't dismiss at the time - the argument that standardized schooling provides general knowledge needed to be a valuable member of society. To converse.

Recently a friend brought up this issue again, with a clearer name - "Social Cohesion" - arguing that there is a need for standardized schooling to create that cohesion, that common narrative that makes a society something more than a scattered group of individuals.

Note that this discussion refers to standardized schooling with state-mandated curriculum and methods. An education system that allows parents full choice of what and how their children will learn is a different matter.

First of all, in the context of this blog entry let's assume social cohesion is a good thing: It makes it easier for people to cooperate, which makes society more resilient, and in turn improves the resilience of the individuals - in average.

Secondly, we can acknowledge the intuition that part of social cohesion is a common cultural language - a common set of reference points. Such reference points serve as a shorthand for expressing ideas. For example, comparing someone's attitude to Eeyore is shorter than describing melancholy at length. Winnie the Pooh is certainly a social cohesion agent for some people I know. Such sources for reference points may include books, movies, television programs, knowledge of certain historical periods, etc. Theoretically, if in a given country, kids were all taught the same books, history, religion, etc., it will be a basis for social cohesion. Theoretically.

Thirdly, no less importantly, and much more disturbingly, we should acknowledge that a great part of social cohesion is a common set of beliefs. A common beliefs system mandated by society is disturbing to those who want to think about their society as a pluralistic one. And developed countries seem to like this view of themselves. It's part of their common belief system. Mandated by society.

There is also the common identity, but that can be considered part of the common set of beliefs.

Regarding the common cultural language: It would be interesting to record the conversations of people, analyze the cultural references, and see where they come from. Lacking that, I will look at what I hear around me: People talk about what they saw on TV, whether it's on last night's news, tomorrow's reality show, a sports event or a twenty-year old dramatic series. Not taught in school. People talk about politics - again, related to what they are told on TV, and I never (ever) heard anyone using what they learned at school to better understand politics.

Sometimes - not often - I hear someone who specializes in the analysis of politics using tools they learned either at university or from life. But that is not common to all schooled people, so it has to be pushed outside this discussion. People talk about the economy. Also what the TV tells them and not enlightened by standard schooling. Also, people around me often quote comedians. Not taught at school. They talk and refer each other to what they found on the Internet. Nothing to do with standard schooling.

There are a few areas where conversation among people has to do with their state-mandated schooling. When people read or write, it usually builds on what they studied at school. When people use their standard second language - English in much of the world - it is often built to some extent on what they studied at school. Also, when people consider buying something, or pay and some change, this type of cultural activity is built on the arithmetic they studied at school. Another type of common cultural knowledge people use has to do with basic interpersonal interactions, acceptable behavior, holidays, leaders and historical figures to admire, etc. What's common to all these is that we get most of the knowledge we need in kindergarten.

It would seem that considering common cultural language, in the fields of basic literacy and basic numeracy, standard schooling does provide a meaningful basis for social cohesion, as well as useful basic skills, which are outside the scope of this entry. It would also seem that in terms of commonly known facts and other cultural reference points, standard schooling is not very meaningful beyond kindergarten.

Let's consider now the part of social cohesion having to do with a common set of beliefs. Even not being completely sure how much of it we want, we probably want some. indoctrination (Yes. That's how it's called.) For example, it is very important to western democracies that everybody believes that a representative democracy is the best conceivable way of life. This idea is being pumped at us by the broadcast news, talk shows and dramatic programming. Even the more modern reality shows are often based on voting mechanisms, further pushing the democratic ideas.

The Internet certainly has the democratic spirit at its source, and it is not shy about it. Democracy is celebrated by politicians, artists and other celebrities. It is also promoted in the school, which incidentally is one of the least democratic establishments imaginable. It doesn't seem that school can be a significant part of the belief-installation. It can't compete with the flood of PR from all the other ubiquitous sources. The same goes for common religious beliefs. Where these are desirable to a society or its rulers, they are also ubiquitous - on TV, on billboards, etc.

It seems that for milder forms of indoctrination necessary to create a common set of beliefs and a common identity, again schooling has only a minor role.

Should we trust TV to create our kids' culture? Probably not, but schooling can't be the answer - it doesn't have enough impact. Should we trust "the community" to create the culture? The answer here is amusing. It is almost always: "My community is well equipped to do that, but the other guys' community is not." It is not clear what we should do, which can brings defenders of schooling as builder of social cohesion to say that as long as we don't know how much implicit cultural impact schools have, and as long as we don't have a clear alternative, we should continue with this solution. Let's defenestrate (ooh! I always wanted to use this word in a sentence) this sort of argument with the very little consideration it deserves: To keep our children at a school controlled and run by politicians and other strangers, for so many years, we need very clear reasons. Much clearer than suspected implicit positive impact.

There is also the question of what sort of social cohesion we want. And the question regarding what social cohesion we can expect in a globalized world changing constantly - faster than the curriculum and teacher training could ever change. Then there is also the slightly sinister question of what socialization purposes school does serve. Some other time.

Marketing By Any Other Name

For the purpose of this entry, "marketing" is the activity aimed at creating and maintaining the organization's image and position, so customers will tend to get their products or services from the organization instead of from competitors. There are other useful aspects of marketing, such as adapting the organization to the needs of the customers, but we will deal with those aspects separately. Indulging in marketing is often conceived of as selfish. And it is in a way. For that reason, most people who work in the field of education see marketing as incompatible with their work. Education is not a commodity to be marketed and sold. True. However:

Every school has an image in the public. This image is influenced by messages and signals that find their way out of the school, either with or without explicit action by the school. The question is whether the school should consciously influence these messages and image. The word consciously is key here, because the school does of course influence these messages: By choosing the name of the school; by talking to individual parents; by talking to the PTA; by choosing the subject for the school play; by talking with the pupils, etc. The school’s image is influenced by the type of neighborhood in which It is located. Whether we like it or not, the school’s image is determined to a large extent by the mix of ethnicity and socioeconomic backgrounds represented by the pupils. Certainly the image is also affected by rumors - whether true or false - about problems in the teachers’ lounge, in the schoolyard, etc. Messages and signals that determine the school’s image don’t just leak, they spew all over the place. And they matter. In this case, it would be better to work on these messages consciously, and not allow chance and ill will determine the fate of the school.

None of this is new. In reality, principals are very aware that their choices convey messages that determine the image of the school. They usually choose their words carefully when talking to parents. They have a certain message in their mind - to the pupils and to the community - when they select a subject for the school-play. Except they usually don't call it "marketing." And maybe they are right. In business and politics, the activity of managing the organization's image and position is referred to as marketing or public-relations. We may use these terms, or select another term that may be a better match for education - both because of the way we want to see education as different than all these self-interest-ridden fields, and because of the real differences. By the way, being careful of the words being used instead of "marketing" to create and maintain the right image, definitely counts as a marketing concern.

A few words about these self-interest-ridden fields. In business, the goal of the organization, and therefore the goal of marketing is quite clear: To promote the business interests of the organization. Sometimes, there is a secondary goal of promoting the well-being of the employees, with the understanding that in the long term it will affect the business interest of the organization. This is indeed different than the goals of a school, which has a primary obligation to the pupils, the parents and to society. Note that very often businesses and politicians tell us how much they care for us, but the reader wouldn't be shocked at a claim that it’s just lip-service on the way to take care of their own interests. This must be different with schools, which are tools used by society to groom the pupils to be future members of the society.

This special relationship with the concept of “marketing” is not unique to schools or even education in general. It is also the case for any organization with strong non-business interests - an interest in society in general, or in a certain social agenda. Amnesty International needs to create a certain image in order to be effective. Médecins Sans Frontières, ICRC, etc - all encounter similar questions about how to market themselves, so they can perform their function within society and for society. The issue may be relevant to many volunteer-based organizations. Can’t be totally selfless, but shouldn't be very selfish.

Part of the issue around marketing is the question “Who is US, who is CUSTOMER, and who is COMPETITOR?” (We can leave out the less important question of “what is PRODUCT?”) In a business, “US” is the organization, with some statements about how “our employees are our most important asset,” and about our “partnership with our customers.” In a business, CUSTOMER is usually whoever signs the check. COMPETITOR of a business is whatever other business which is in a position to convince CUSTOMER to sign a check with the wrong payee name on it - COMPETITOR instead of US.

Who is US in education? In a social organization such as a school, the term is less clear: Does US refer to the ministry of education? To the principal? Do the teachers and other school staff count? The pupils? Parents? Society? If we suspend our cynicism for a while, one possible answer is YES. We are working together towards a common goal. It’s a partnership, where every partner can contribute to or damage the effort. Every partner has to continuously show that they are worthy contributors. Every partner should also make sure others know what this partner can contribute to them, so the other can benefit. These are the goals of marketing in this context.

What about the definition of education CUSTOMER? Nobody in particular. Everybody. Broadly speaking, without getting into the bedeviled details, each partner needs the cooperation of the other partners. For example: The teachers need the school organization; the school needs the pupils, so it needs the parents to send them to the school; the parents need the teachers to teach the pupils; society needs the graduated pupils, etc. It is a good idea for partners to treat each other a bit like customers - make them happy, but not at any cost.

And who is education COMPETITOR? In a way, schools are competitors to each other, competing over the pupils. In a way, pupils are competitors to each other, competing over positions in a good school and later - positions in society. But since they are also part of the same US, it would be good if they compete nicely. The term “coopetition” may give a way of thinking about it.

In this context, instead of using US, CUSTOMER, COMPETITOR etc., the term STAKEHOLDER gains usefulness. We are all stakeholders in the education system. School may be seen as an organization of stakeholders, with a common goal. Schools exist in an environment where other such organizations exist, looking for partners in the same pool of partners, using and generating resources in the same pool of resources, and largely sharing the same goal.

Maybe the word "marketing" can't cover social organizations in general, and education in particular. Here's a first whack at it: How about "Societing?"

Balance: Do vs. Show

"Justice must be seen to be done," but putting too much emphasis on showing may be missing the point. More generally, PR - public relations - are part of the activity of anybody interacting with the public. Sometimes PR is done explicitly, employing PR professionals. Sometimes it is more implicit: An entity interacting with the public may let public relations just happen - let the public find out about the entity's activity and make up its mind about what it (the public) thinks about the entity.

But this is theoretical and abstract. Let's bring it to more earthly terms. First, when we consider interaction with the "public," it refers to any public: At one extreme, the relevant public may be any person who might buy a cell-phone in the next 5 years. At the other extreme, the public may be your boss. (I wouldn't go into the normal but uncomfortable case of the public being your spouse.) How much should one concentrate on doing one's job well, and how much should one concentrate on making sure the boss knows how well the job is being done? Probably should find a balance. Same with making a good and/or inexpensive cell-phone, and then marketing it to let the world know about it. Making the cell phone is not enough. PRomoting it is not enough. Should find a balance.

And here is the payload of this entry: The question is how much work at school should be directed at doing well in teaching, education and whatever it is a school does, and how much work should be directed at showing the public what we do and how well we do it. Put more bluntly: Do we market the school? Many people consider this a very easy question. Some say it's simply heresy: Of course we don't market education - it's too precious, too serious an issue. Others say it's simply reality: Of course we market education - how else would we get students?

But this is not such a simple issue. On one hand, schools have a public. Several publics, actually: Students, parents, teachers, education establishment officials, politicians, and probably more. They all need to know about the school, and if the school doesn't take some responsibility to make sure they know, they may be underinformed, misinformed - by rumors, disinformed - by ill-wishers, and in general badly informed. That wouldn't be good for neither the school nor the public.

No need to worry, though. Every school I ever saw does take some responsibility for how the public sees it: There are pep talks to teachers and students; there is often an ongoing dialog with the parents through the PTA and directly; there is an ongoing discussion with the superintendents and other officials; there is often a school web-site describing what is going on in the school, and possibly stating the school's values. This counts as PR and as marketing. So in reality, schools do engage in something akin to marketing, and the question is not about whether or not they should be putting effort into marketing, but more specific questions. How much effort? What tools of marketing? And most importantly: How to make sure the focus on marketing doesn't compromise the precious and serious education activity?

Thinking about the answers is worthy of its own entry - another time.

One more thought: Ralph Waldo Emerson is said to have said: "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." I haven't lived through the mid 19^th century, but in the context of mid 20^th to early 21^st, I can say he was clearly wrong: One must put a good marketing effort and at least start beating the path, before the world notices and does anything. Even if the mousetrap is really good.

Balance: Equality vs. Freedom

For those of us who felt the previous balancing acts were too lightweight, here's one which is too heavy: The balance between equality and social justice on one hand, and freedom of choice and action on the other. Universal issues that are also tied into the subject of education.

Justice is located deep in the eye of the beholder. Just talk to members of warring parties in any war zone. If you don't happen to live in a war zone, just look at any decision of the supreme court of justice (of any country), divided roughly along the center line. Often along party lines, too. Justice is not very clear even for those few who have the job of dishing it out for us all. No pure truth.

Social justice is more specific than just justice, but not any closer to consensus. Is it socially just to let the poor wallow in their poverty? Is it socially just to let the willfully dysfunctional be insulated from the consequences of their actions - by giving them money for free? Is it socially just to rob the rich and give to the poor? Is it socially just to allow the rich to take advantage of the poor? All these questions are actually one and the same question. Just different points of view looking at the same reality. If see myself as being poor, I have a very clear view of social justice. If I see myself as rich, I also have a clear - and different - view. No pure truth.

Equality is even more specific. Equality of opportunities is more specific yet. But still no pure truth in sight. Or in insight. Equal opportunity overcoming economic background, social/ethnic background, family background, inborn talent, disabilities - inborn or acquired, etc. How much should society invest in the most disadvantaged individuals to make sure they get an equal opportunity? Twice as much as for the averagely advantaged? Twenty times? Two hundred times? This looks like an exaggeration, but it isn't necessarily: Imagine how much effort and resources are needed to straighten the playing field for someone with a low IQ, born to a poor, alcoholic single mom and raised in the streets by no one in particular. And for how long does society need to keep flattening the playing field - providing equal opportunities? Until the age of six? Twelve? Eighteen? Eighty? At what point is a person considered to have received the fair opportunity, and if they failed they should live through the consequences? Ever? There is much room for discussing these questions, and the many books and philosophical works written on it haven't filled that room. No pure truth.

Freedom is nice. We like freedom. We like our own freedom - not so sure how we feel about other people's freedom. We say one person's freedom ends where another person's nose begins, but there are so many noses around. Some noses are so large that there is not much room for freedom around them. I am referring to those who claim the right to be offended at any utterance other than praise.

Honing in on the aspects of freedom that need to be balanced with aspects of equality: Consider affirmative action, designed to improve equality of opportunity in situations where there is a historically privileged part of society (read: white males) and a historically underprivileged part. Affirmative action sounds good: It tries to level the playing field for the underprivileged. But what happened to the freedom of the privileged to pursue happiness as best as they can? To remind us of the different justices, affirmative action has another name - reverse discrimination - which doesn't sound quite as good. We don't like discrimination... Or maybe we do. Depends on whose justice we are looking after.

Equality and freedom have an uncomfortable relation when it comes to education. It is close to the consensus (there are some dissenting views though) that a wide gap in education is not socially just. It is not very good even from a utilitarian point of view of the relatively privileged - wide gaps can cause social unrest, and the privileged like their peace and quiet. So we would want to close the gap. One aspect of that is giving the underprivileged a boost: Directing more resources towards them, encouraging participation in schools, etc. But here is a problem: How much "encouragement"? What do we do with parts of the society that are not as excited about modern education as the secular modern state would like? Do we infringe on the rights of the creationist Christians, the devout Muslims or the ultra-orthodox Jews to educate their kids the way they see fit, even if the secular modern establishment sees it as unfit? Where is their freedom?

Also, choice is a type of freedom. What if the rich want to send their kids to an educational institute that demands high payments from the parents? They should have the freedom to do that, but certainly that would work against equality. A similar and even more distressing issue is that of schools that use admittance testing. To make a the case more acute, let's say it's a primary school, testing for admittance, so to a large extent even a purely cognitive test really tests for the family background of a child. Clearly such a barrier defies equality, but banning it goes against pretty basic freedoms of those who would pass the tests. Disallowing testing can even be seen as denying the talented the equal opportunity to make the most of themselves - to be all they can be. And if it's a high-school, is it OK to test? What about University? No pure truth.

Here's an even worse dilemma: Do we allow schools to dismiss under-performing pupils? If we do, we may be denying an opportunity from someone who may come around, and who may be having trouble temporarily due to their background, which is not their fault. If we don't allow dismissal of such pupils, we must decide how much of the school's limited resources are to be invests in those who would otherwise be dismissed, at the expense of those who are doing OK. If we put more effort into the under-performers, we are hurting the normal pupils. If we don't invest much in the weak pupils, they will not be able to catch up on their own, and they are likely to disrupt the classes they are in. This way we would be hurting both the weak and the strong (at least we are fine on the equality front.) And while we are at it, do we dismiss a pupil who is disruptive in class?

So, it's tricky to "encourage" the underprivileged - it infringes on their freedom and on the equal opportunity for those who would otherwise be privileged. It's tricky to limit the privileged - it infringes on their freedoms. It's tricky to leave education to market forces - it kills equal opportunity. Every compromise idea I heard so far in this context is a package of infringements on freedoms and equality.

This entry is so far quite depressing. I will try to make it more positive by ending with a proposal:

• For the sake of equality of opportunity, the state should finance public schools.
• For the sake of freedom, the state should make it easy for entrepreneurs to create a state-funded school.
  
• For the sake of equality in the face of unequal background, the state may fund schools differentially, to give extra support to schools that cater for the underprivileged.
• For the sake of freedom, the state should keep to a bare minimum its requirements of what and how to teach.
• For the sake of equality, public schools will not test pupils before admittance. If more pupils register to a school than the school can handle - pupils will be admitted by a lottery . An intended side effect would be that this random assignment would facilitate much needed research.
• For the sake of freedom, the state will allow private schools - without state funding - to perform admittance testing, and to dismiss pupils.
• For the sake of equality, state funded schools will be able to dismiss a pupil only after making a convincing effort (time, money, attention) to enable the pupil to continue.

As every other set of rules in this context, it is also a package of infringements on equality and on freedom. Still, it looks like an adequate option.

Balance: Creativity vs. Control

Creativity is great. It allows us to create opportunities and to seize them. It allows us to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Without creativity opportunities are ignored and lost. Without the flexibility accompanying creativity, unforeseen problems are ignored and might kill us.

Control is important, though it doesn't feel quite as great as creativity. Without self-control and its accompanying focus, any individual's enterprise can easily fizzle out, effort being scattered all over the place. Without central control, any complex enterprise is likely to disintegrate into individuals and small groups acting in different directions.

Generally speaking, control mechanisms tend to make creativity more difficult. But there are ways to combine control and creativity. For example, general control can be achieved by requiring adherence to plans and orders on the larger scale, while leaving room for creativity and local decisions on the smaller scale. In the field of education, this may translate to something like the charter schools in the US. These schools must adhere to certain requirements, such as a certain level of proficiency of the students in various fields. But there is much room for local control and creativity in how the pupils are taught, and what they may be taught in addition to the centrally imposed requirements.

Creativity vs. Control is quite related to Planning vs. Acting. Creativity is akin to Planning in that both keep the options open, allow changes and flexibility, and generally view the world at a rather wide angle. Control and Acting are similar in that both look at the world at a focused, narrow angle, and are guided by the idea of sticking to the original plan. Both Control and Action have limited peripheral vision, so they both are likely to miss some ideas and opportunities. It's a sacrifice necessary to allow concentration on achieving something, rather than considering something.

The relationship between control and creativity is a bit more complex than just being two ends of a continuum. In some ways constraints, such as those imposed by a controlling authority, provide opportunities for creativity, where control allows it to exist. I was working with an architect on building a house (that horror story can fill another book), and he was happy to solicit constraints from me. It seemed that limitations can serve as anchors, or as bases around which to build his ideas.

Most state education systems err on the control side. They prescribe the curriculum, pedagogic methods, budget, timing, testing, organizational structure, labor relations, legal standing, insurance and liabilities, values, etc. This is not a surprise, since control spells power, and state-systems speak the language of power. But this leaves very little room for creativity, resulting in such an inflexible structure that any opportunity seized or any unexpected problem averted are probably an indication of punishable non-compliance by someone in the system.

While working with city officials and education system principals etc., it is clear that their work is severely controlled by others. At the same time, it is clear that there is great creative potential among them: If they are allowed to dream and to find solutions to tough problems on the way to realize the dreams - they dream; they are creative. This is a failing of mine, but I wouldn't normally expect them to be that. It gives room for hope that while the education system organization is problematic - overly controlling - the people comprising the organization can easily become the lively members of a more flexible and creative organization, if the establishment only allows them to be that.

Balance: Planning vs. Acting

Striking the right balance is tricky in many fields. For example, how much attention should I devote to blogging, and how much to actions in the material world? But that's a small one. There are a few bigger balance-related dilemmas that I want to address. None of them is a philosophical breakthrough, but I find it useful to lay them out clearly.

Regarding Planning vs. Acting: The extremes are known to be bad: Action without planning is likely to produce failure. Planning without acting - known as "analysis paralysis" - doesn't produce even that. "Measure twice, cut once" is a standard admonition. Maybe we should measure thrice? No universal answers. It's good to keep the dilemma in mind. It's even better to develop the mental habit of noticing when extra planning ceases to produce much higher quality plans, and then acting.

Also notice the planning vs. acting issue is a dynamic one: Planning usually comes first, then acting, then... Another phase of planning. Many projects can benefit from an incremental, iterative plan-act-plan-act-... sequence. And it isn't always a distinct sequence. Sometimes planning and action take place at the same time - planning the next action while performing the previous one. There is even an interesting case made for following the last action with a pre-planning phase - see "A Rational Design Process: How And Why To Fake It."

To make sure this dilemma is connected to the main theme of the blog - Education Revolution - note that in education there is always the question of how much research (read "Planning") should be done before rolling out (read "Acting") an educational program. It is shocking how much is done on the extremes: endless planning in some cases, planless action in others.

Publicizing Research Findings

It is a goal of FIRE - Facilitation Institute for Research in Education - to build up knowledge. Building knowledge requires that the results of any study or research will be available to the widest possible audience. It is another goal of FIRE to establish a culture of evidence based management. However, there is an important cultural issue here: It is often assumed that if I “report” to someone, then I am inferior to them and at risk of being attacked by them. The assumption is often correct.

Having information about me given to a superior or to a colleague who may be in competition with me, makes me vulnerable. Especially – but not only – if that information has to do with a failure of mine. A student may not be happy if such information is available to fellow students, teachers, etc. A teacher may not be happy if information about them and their class is available to other teachers, the principal, etc. A principal may not be happy if information about them and their school is available to other teachers, comptrollers, etc. The current culture is one of concealment, and the long-term goal is to change that culture into one of openness and learning – imagine that: A culture of learning at the education system.

But we live in reality and not in our long term vision. With the existing culture, if the results of a research are planned to be publicized, it is much less likely that the researchers and FIRE will achieve happy cooperation with schools, teachers, parents, ministry of education, and other participants. There must be an understanding between the researchers and participants about how the findings will be treated. A gradual approach to allowing access to research results is necessary. Starting with minimal and totally anonymous information, the information sharing may increase only with prior agreement of all participants. The need to pace ourselves means making an extra effort, in addition to the research effort, and having the extra effort work against the main thrust of building knowledge. It's unpleasant, but apparently necessary. A gradual and willing-cooperation-based approach will maintain trust, which will enable a meaningful research.

Below are a few sample steps or phases that may be used. The population of a research study can determine the rate of movement between phases, the order of the phases, and whether phases might be split or combined. All to be done with as much consensus as possible.

A first step might be giving each participant the information relevant to themselves, all data being anonymous. For example, in a study concerned with attitudes towards learning, a schoolmaster would receive information about the statistics of attitude in their school, such as averages, percentiles, etc. This information will not be broken into individual classes, to avoid it being attributable to a specific teacher. Each teacher will get information about the statistics of attitude in their class, but without information about individual students. In this first phase, no information will be accessible outside the school. If possible, it may even be useful to provide each student with feedback according to their own attitude as measured by the research. Personal feedback is a tricky proposition, since it might feel invasive and reduce the trust. The order of releasing information is also significant. It is important that the teachers receive information before the principal, to minimize the sense of vulnerability.

After a few years of receiving such feedback, acting on the feedback and seeing improvement, teachers may start feeling safer with the availability of information. For that to happen it is critical that the principal doesn't try to decipher the research results in order to find culprits or scapegoats. Teachers may start seeing the advantage in measuring their domain of control in order to better manage it. The next phase may be the provision of information for comparison and orientation – to enable each teacher to see how they fair in comparison with the school or with all other classes of the same grade as theirs.

A major step may be the opening of the information about individual classes to all the teachers and the principal. Succeeding in doing that would be an indication of movement from a culture of malevolent competition towards a culture of cooperation, or at least coopetition. It is a culture where a "problem" is "something to be solved," and not "something to be accused of."

There may be many other phases and steps, but ultimately, when the participants are ready, studies should be released to the public. This will enable comparison among schools, learning from each other and the Holy Grail: Building up knowledge.

Clear Message

In the past few months I had many opportunities to introduce the thinking in this blog to people. Not-surprisingly, it is clear that the initial way the ideas are presented determines the chances for cooperation. If the way an idea is presented appears to clash with the beliefs of the listener - it is difficult to correct the damage and regain the possibility of cooperation. If the idea initially sounds too complex, or if the listener misunderstands anything, it takes great effort to remove wrong interpretations and install new interpretations in the mind of the listener, and often the effort is in vain. Better get it right the first time.

So, here is an attempt to describe the problems and solutions, showing how obvious the thinking is. There are no new ideas here. Just an orderly presentation.

Looking at the education establishment of a state - almost any state - we can see a large organization - tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of employees in large countries: Teachers, administrators, logistics workers, etc. There are many layers of management. There are many departments, divisions and agencies interacting with each other in many jurisdictions, responsibilities and areas of authority. It's a very slow and heavy structure for an organization. In almost every state, the education establishment tries to maintain central control and management through this complex and therefore slow structure. By its nature, such an organization can't respond quickly to changes. This has nothing to do with how wonderful and well meaning the teachers and managers are. This has nothing to do with the exact method of teaching, with teacher training, with the number of kids per class, with the curriculum, etc. A centralized, large and complex education system cannot respond quickly to changes.

Looking around us, in the beginning of the 21^st century, and even in the last few decades of the 20^th, it is clear that the pace of change in society is fast and getting faster: The Internet has already dramatically changed the availability of information, and with it the way we acquire knowledge. Ubiquitous distant communication - through email, cellular phones, twitter etc - has changed the way we interact with each other. Commercial news broadcasting has changed the way we consume information about what is going on in the world. Post modernism is moving us into a different mode of relating to authority. These are just a few examples of changes we can already see happening, all happened in the past few decades. In general, human civilization is changing very quickly, and not showing any sign of slowing down.

Taking these two simple facts: 1. A centralized education system can't respond to fast changes; and 2. Civilization is changing very quickly; the clear conclusion is that a centralized education system can't work for us. This is not being said with any sense of resentment, accusation or even frustration. This is just contrasting the nature of large cohesive organization with the nature of current society. They don't match. There is no point in trying to change the system from within - the system is very good at resisting change. Most large organizations are very good at that. This is what large organizations do by design: Perpetuate themselves. There is no point in incremental changes to the way the education system functions - it's just not the right system.

What type of education system would work in a fast-changing society? A system that naturally tends to respond to varied and changing expectations and demands. A decentralized system with some freedom of judgment and action. A distributed system in constant contact with its surrounding society. The reader can choose - according to their political tendency - to call it a market economy system or a pluralistic system. (In this context, it's the same concept.) Here is the wild idea, followed immediately by an illustration of how it is not wild at all: Let anybody who wants to create a school do it, with the support of the state, and with certain regulation. This may appear revolutionary and frightening, but bear in mind that we are familiar with similar systems that seem to match our needs to some extent. Such regulated free systems include the higher education system, the food industry, the finance industry etc. And before the reader explodes about the current financial meltdown, may I remind the reader that his/her salary probably still goes into and out of the checking account quite regularly. It works. Of course, there are differences between an education system and other market systems. There are many details to be worked out, but these details, however difficult to tackle, shouldn't blind us to the big picture: A centralized education system can't work, and is not a viable option, even as a fallback.

So, the main course is freedom of choice, market economy or pluralism. With it comes a side of regulation. To be close to consensus, the regulation must be minimal - what every school must do, and what every school must not do. The exact details of the regulation can be determined later - why fight now? But an example is in order. As examples for the "must do"s, schools may be required to make sure every student can read and write easily and perform arithmetic tasks easily - math, algebra, calculus etc are optional, and not enforced by the minimal regulation. As an example for the "must not do"s, schools must not allow students to develop the attitude that it's acceptable to victimize others. To be effective, the regulation must also be very strict. A school that doesn't comply with the minimal regulation loses its license to operate, and is forcibly closed.

Another required extension to the basic idea of market/pluralism is that of knowledge sharing and building. Since the basic understanding is that society changes quickly, we need ongoing research to keep up with the needs and to keep up with the different teaching and learning methods that will spring up to try and address the needs and opportunities. Since there are going to be many types of schools using different curricula and different methods, there is a common interest in sharing the knowledge, so failed attempts don't need to be repeated, and so that successful methods can be replicated. Openness to knowledge sharing and transparency will also enable effective regulation, and will allow parents' choice based on facts. The type of research needed here is less theoretical and more applicable than most of the research done in education these days.

Bottom line:

Existing education establishments are large and complex, and they can't respond to fast changes. Society changes very quickly in the 21^st century. Ergo: Existing education establishments can't work in the 21^st century. What can work is a market economy, with a minimal and strict regulation. Ongoing applicable education research will enable an effective distributed system with its accompanying regulation.

By the way: All this will take a few decades.

Non-Goals of FIRE

When mapping the domain of FIRE, it is useful to consider and define what FIRE is going to do. It is also useful to spell out what activities and interests are explicitly out of FIRE's scope.

1. FIRE does not perform research.

This emphasizes the mission of FIRE to facilitate research rather than to perform research. Performing a research project costs much more. So for any finite amount of money available to FIRE, the number of research projects that can be performed and fully financed is much less than the number of research projects that can be merely supported. For example, consider the case of FIRE funding a full research project, contrasted with the case where FIRE only funds an extra follow-up phase on an already funded research: If FIRE obtains $1,000,000 in funding, and if an average smallish research costs $100,000 and the cost of a small follow-up phase is $10,000 - performing full research projects would mean contributing to humanity 10 projects. Supporting specific aspects - follow-up in this case - would mean contributing 100 projects. 100 is greater than 10.

Another set of reasons for not performing research, even if funding is practically unlimited has to do with academic capability and integrity: A single research organization doesn't have access to all the knowledge and ideas. If we had just one university, we wouldn't have as much research - and presumably knowledge - as we do now. More research and thinking capability stem directly from diversity. Also, any single organization concentrating on research is in danger of developing conceptions about the world and an agenda that may dominate the types of research it does. Integrity can be found in diversity.

2. FIRE does not dictate research topics or domains.

Even without full financing of research, as ruled out in 1. above, an organization may have too much power in determining agendas. Avoiding having excessive influence in this way, would take ongoing attention. This is because FIRE does intend to be active in the vicinity of this non-goal, without being active in the non-goal itself. One such adjacent activity is maintaining a pool of possible research questions that lend themselves to actionable research. It is important for FIRE to succeed in maintaining a list of optional research questions while not letting it degenerate into a list of recommended research questions or even further into an exclusive list of admissible research questions.

3. FIRE does not promote any specific theory.

If FIRE is not careful, and becomes partial towards one theory or another, it would lose the trust of those not supporting that theory. And since it doesn't seem that a single theory of education is going to emerge any time soon, there are going to be different people who support different education theories - or should I say education faiths? Anyway, I never met a serious educational researcher who claims to have the one TRUTH.

4. FIRE does not promote any specific terminology.

"Language Creates Thought." The terminology used by researchers at the very least affects their thinking, and definitely defines the meaning of any research. For example, consider the issue of scholastic aptitude: If a researcher looks at scholastic aptitude level, this may lead to making tests and measurements of an individual regarding a predetermined set of knowledge and ability domains, and coming up with a number - a level. If another researcher of the supposedly same issue by looking at scholastic aptitude domain, it may lead to looking at different knowledge and ability domains, and checking where an individual has high aptitude. The researcher interested in "level" may come to a conclusion that the individual's level is low, while the researcher interested in "domain" may come to a conclusion that the same individual is a genius painter.

The above example may be oversimplified, but there are many sets of differences in terminology, which affect the researcher's actions and interpretations. Just one example from the academic world, and we will go back to human language: Trying to model the relations between interest and knowledge, K. A. Renninger looks at a matrix of different levels of Prior Knowledge and Value of Activity, while S. Tobias looks at Prior Knowledge and Personal Interest. The subtle difference between "Value of Activity" and "Personal Interest" can have an effect on what the researchers look for, and how they interpret what they find.

It would be very tempting for anyone trying to build a body of knowledge to base it on a single set of concepts. But what is the "right" set of concepts? What even is a "good" set of concepts? This is an issue for academic discussion, and not for an organization like FIRE, which is not concerned with generating new theoretical ideas.

5. FIRE does not provide scholarships.

To succeed, FIRE needs to be able to focus its attention on a cohesive set of activities. Other organizations provide scholarships and have the relevant know-how. It seems that FIRE wouldn't have anything significant and new to add in this realm.

=============

As is the case with many facets of FIRE - and of any other initiative - there is no end for the possible details regarding what FIRE could but would not because it should not do. The above sampling shows the direction.

Financially Challenged Research

Most of us need more money. At least we tend to think that. Researchers have a special name for money - they call it "research funding". Theoretically speaking, if grant money was freely available, we could expect more and better research. But it's not freely available, which causes - beyond the trivial difficulty in funding any research - a host of specific limitations on research that does get funded. Some of these limitations make it more difficult to perform actionable research, which is the domain of discussion in this blog.

Often (always?) a researcher faces a situation where the available funding can provide for a limited research and does not allow for everything the researcher would have liked to do. Then the researcher needs to decide whether to drop the particular research, or do what they can while being aware of the limited validity of the results. Neither decision is a happy one.

A few examples of money-related limitations on research, and ways FIRE can improve the situation:

1. Small sample size

When studying a large population - E.g., the millions of first-grade-age kids at any given year in Africa - it is not practical to directly study all of them. We usually study a smaller group - a sample of the population. Performing a research on a small sample is sensitive to statistical and methodical problems. It is error-prone, so the results can't be completely relied upon as a basis for action. All researchers know that, but when a researcher obtains a fixed amount of money, this will limit the sample size the research can handle. FIRE can complement the funds of a grant specifically in order to enlarge the sample.

2. Short attention span

Often a study can benefit from being extended in time. This extension can have the form of a short follow-up of the research a while after the main research work was completed. It can have the form of continuous study of the same group of people - a longitudinal study. It can have the form of replicating a study or of drilling-down and performing an extra phase of study to get a better understanding of what the initial stage of the study suggested. A specific example of a drill-down, which is of special interest to me, could be the performance of a significant quantitative research to check ideas generated by an initial qualitative study. FIRE can complement the funds of a grant specifically in order to perform such time-extensions.

3. Limited geographical span

Trying to study the population of a large country means working with participants and research collaborators over a large area. Travel is costly. Communication technology is expensive: line-phones, cell-phones, satellite-phones, together with their respective audio and video-conference facilities, etc. This can cause the research to be limited in geographical scope, and therefore limited in applicability. FIRE can provide funding for travel, equipment and access to equipment.

4. Limited use of recordings

The relative advantages of different recording techniques in an interview is discussed in a previous entry. FIRE can provide funding, equipment, access to equipment, transliteration, automatic analysis facilities and services, etc.

5. Suboptimal experiment environment

Some research should be done in a lab settings, where the environment is as much as possible in the control of the researcher. Any aspect of the environment - any variable - that is outside the control of the researcher, may damage the validity of the research, and the applicability of its results. To conduct a serious research, one sometimes needs a well equipped lab, capable of hosting many participants over a period of time. FIRE can maintain such labs for the benefit of researchers, and provide funding for the use of other labs.

6. Other trivial limitations

Laptops, off the shelf software, custom developed software, photocopying, graphic design, research assistants, training, public relations (to ensure high rate of participation), legal fees (dealing with ethics and liabilities), database access fees, translation costs, etc. FIRE can provide assistance in addressing these and many more, to make researchers' life easier.

A general note about FIRE's role in the context of research finances: FIRE does not perform research, and doesn't fund complete research. If it did, there would have been a very limited amount of research FIRE would be involved in - limited by the amounts of money FIRE would be able to command.

FIRE is a research infrastructure provider, concerned with facilitating actionable research. This means that support and funding provided are meant to encourage researchers and would-be researchers to perform applicable research. This may sometimes mean providing enough support to make it possible for an already funded research to be upgraded to the next level of potential usability. This way, FIRE aims at having a positive effect on the largest number of educational research projects with the widest range of scientific agendas.

Boring Tasks in Research

Thomas Edison said that genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. He used the same concept for invention. It seems that a similar formula is right for research, which is what may lead to invention, which in turn may lead to the reputation of genius. To make things even less glamorous, much of the perspiration doesn't relate directly to the area of expertise in the research. A well-known example is Edison's (again) experiments with the incandescent light bulb. Different sources claim he performed between 6,000 to 10,000 experiments before he found a reasonable combination. Not fun.

Educational Research is no exception. There are many tasks that must be performed, taking up much perspiration and time, which do not have much to do with expertise in education. I am told it often happens that the prospect of having to do such tasks often deters Masters and Doctoral students from performing certain types of research. Society loses many opportunities to learn about Education. The good news is that some of these tasks may be outsourced: They can be done by someone else with no loss of integrity to the research. This is part of the mission of FIRE - to take as much of the overhead tasks off the shoulders of the researchers who wish to concentrate on their subject - education.

A few examples for such boring tasks that can be taken up by FIRE:

1. Validating questionnaires and other research tools

Designing a questionnaire is a professional task, and the researcher needs to make many decisions regarding what to ask, how, in what order, etc. But after the initial questionnaire design and before it is possible to use it with confidence, there is a need to validate the questionnaire: To make sure that the questionnaire indeed tests what it is meant to test, and that it doesn't test anything else, that it suits the intended audience, and much more. This requires considerable work, together with financial and human resources. To make it even more daunting, to be done well, this process may need to be repeated several times while changing the questionnaire until it can be considered valid. This is a potential deterrent for someone who just wanted to do research in education. FIRE can shoulder much of the validation work, though none of the design work.

2. Re-validating questionnaires to maintain their validity over time

Because the world is changing quickly, a questionnaire validated 20 years ago can’t be considered still valid. The group for which it was validated doesn't necessarily exist anymore. For example, if the questionnaire was validated perfectly for average-grade middle-income suburban Caucasian 6^th graders in 1990 (having started the perfect validation work in the 1980s), the group disappeared, because average-grade middle-income suburban Caucasian 6^th graders in 2010 watch different TV, roam the Internet being exposed to very different types of information and content than their 1990 ancestors; Their parents have very different work patterns and patterns of relating to the children; the climate at school is different, etc. The questionnaire needs to be re-validated for the new group whose description appears to be the same as the original one, but the Best-Use-By date is significantly different. The revalidating process may sometimes require changes in the questionnaire, for example, to update the language used according to the transient fashions of spoken language. FIRE can perform such re-validation, therefore maintaining the usefulness of the questionnaire.

3. Replicating new research to make sure it is… well… replicable

In strict scientific communities, a single research supporting or refuting a claim is not quite enough. The scientific community feels much better if the same research or a very similar one can be performed, which gives identical - or at least similar - results. This doesn't seem to happen very often in educational research. Maybe it's an indication that the educational research community doesn't take itself very seriously as a science. Whatever the reason, replicating research is not considered an interesting enough topic to get the funding and commitment from researchers. FIRE can encourage such replicating research by providing part of the funding.

4. Replicating old research to check if it is still valid

After a physics theory was confirmed by research to the satisfaction of the scientific community, the laws of physics tend to stay quite stable. There is no need to repeat the research again. In education this is not the case. Society changes constantly, and with it the attitudes, behavior, expectations and even abilities of individuals. For example, in 1939, Lewin, Lippitt & White published a study about “Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates.” This study is still affecting the thinking about teacher leadership styles. The study is over 70 years old. Shouldn't we suspect that our aggressive behavior patterns and responses to aggression have changed a bit since before WWII, with added television, ubiquitous news/drama, multiculturalism etc? We need to explicitly revalidate the results of the study by performing it again - in whole or in part. FIRE can encourage such replicating research by providing part of the funding.

5. Performing follow-up research

It is often useful to revisit an experiment or other research after a while - even years - and perform an extra step. For example, when checking the effect of a new teaching methods, the basic research may check students knowledge acquisition right after a lesson. It is interesting to check how much of that knowledge is retained after a certain period of time - say a year. So one would expect the researcher to perform a follow up step a year after the original research... But the original research is completed, the paper was already published, and the student who performed the research has graduated and is gone. There is no glory in performing the remaining step, and probably no funding. Too often, the follow up just won't happen. FIRE can encourage such follow up research by providing some of the funding or by other means.

6. Obtaining existing data from known sources

Much research can be done based on existing historical and background data, such as student grades, student socioeconomic background etc. Obtaining this data is not always easy. Problems range from legal issues, to privacy concerns, to garden variety bureaucracy. Fighting city hall is an unwelcome prospect to a would-be researcher - they didn't want to have a fight, just to do research in education. FIRE can provide "data extraction" services, with a complete umbrella of human relations, legal abilities, trust relationship and technical solutions to privacy issues (anonymization), and moral and political clout to encourage cooperation from those in control of the databases.

7. Obtaining existing data from unknown sources

Often, even if the data is assumed to exist, it is difficult to know where reliable data can be found. For example, looking at populations of immigrants within a larger established population may prove to be tricky. Which government or city office has the info? Does the info account for illegal immigrants? Does it account for the now-established children of immigrants? Does it account for less recent immigrants? Obtaining this data can deteriorate to the field of private investigation. Not part of academic education concerns. This, too can deter a researcher from tackling a research question that might otherwise be very interesting and useful. FIRE can provide data-location and evaluation services.

8. Translation. E.g., from Broken English to English

Sometimes sources for the research are written in a language not easily accessible to the researchers. Other times the desired language for publication is not easily accessible. FIRE can provide translation and proof-reading services.

... You get the picture. FIRE's Roadblock Clearing Catalog will contain many more ways to improve the life and work of the researchers.

The Book

This entry is written as an introduction to the book being edited out of this blog's entries in 2009:

Less than a year ago, I set out to systematically study the issues surrounding mass education. I felt the current state of affairs is very wrong, but I didn't know many details. Not knowing enough about the problem, I of course couldn't know much about possible solutions. It took me a few months of study to understand the problem a bit better. Then it took a few more months to shape my opinion about what kind of education system would work. Then it took a few more months to get a sense as to what might be a useful first step to get from where we are now to the ultimate goal - a viable education system for the 21^st and 22^nd centuries. And here we are.

This is a rather lofty goal. Who am I to design an education system, or even to think about it? It would take a much better qualified person to do it. To be really worthy of planning an education system, it would take a lot of knowledge and experience:

• Knowledge and experience as a developmental psychologist
• Experience in teaching different ages
• Preschool
• Primary school
• Secondary school
• High school
• Experience as a school principal
• Experience in various related state-government roles
• Experience in various related local-government roles
• Knowledge and experience in regulation
• Academic depth in education, and specifically, public education
• Experience and academic depth in alternative education
• Academic depth in public education policy
• Know humanity’s accumulated knowledge and experience in the field of education
• Through time
• Past 200 years
• Throughout history
• What about Prehistory?
• Across the world
• What happened in each country?
• Why it worked?
• Why it didn't work?
• Be aware of all research ever done, with a critical eye to discern the strengths and weaknesses of each such research
• Education
• Relevant fields of psychology
• Relevant fields of public policy

It's a tall order. No human being matches all of the above requirements, and I certainly don't match any of them. Instead of total expertise, maybe something can be done with common sense, willingness to learn, and cooperation with experts.

This book intentionally sticks to everyday layperson’s language. It avoids specific educational/psychological/political jargon that would make it less accessible and less useful to the public in general. It is not a scientific book written for scientists. This is one reason I allow myself to use references to Internet locations such as wikipedia, which while not acceptable as a source for academic papers, is surprisingly accurate - more than enough for a layman's use.

Another aspect of this book is that it is written mostly from the point of view of an outsider to the education system and to the adjacent political systems. Being an outsider doesn't mean I can be disconnected and talk as a pure theoretician - that would not be likely to generate a book that has much to do with reality. To have relevant ideas, I have to be involved - get in the field and see how things work. Of course it is never “enough.” But one needs to find a balance: To see and know about reality, but not get so involved with that reality that one becomes an insider, committed to certain world views and agendas. Becoming an insider, I would risk becoming used to think as a status quo teacher, academic, researcher, government etc. On the other hand, there is a chance an outsider would see everybody’s thinking with fresh eyes. .An outsider is more likely to be understood by laypeople. No jargon. No reliance on specialized previous knowledge... No promises, though.

A few thoughts about getting involved: How does one get involved enough to gain understanding, without losing too much objectivity?

• Be in a class as a pupil - We all did that for many years
• Be in a class as a teacher, but don’t take on the stance of a teacher
• Work with academics in thinking and research, but don’t become a pure academic
• Learn from academic sources about psychology, motivation, education, public policy, etc. But don't take their world-views as your own
• Look closely from within at government decision-making, but for heaven's sake don't become a politician
• Work with NGOs concerned with education, while remembering most of them have different aims than you
• ... You get the picture

I tried to do much of that, and still doing it to improve my understanding, trying to keep from buying into any specific agenda.

One last thought before we go: The book was originally written as a blog, as part of a process of learning and exploring the issues around mass education. It documents much thinking and rethinking, so many thoughts and details do not lead directly to the main conclusions. Rather, they provide some context, depth and hopefully a better basis for understanding. The main ideas that constitute the backbone of this book are: Market economy for education, minimal but strict Regulation and Knowledge-Building through Research. The book should be read in light of these concepts.

Great Expectations

This entry is about what people can and should expect from themselves and from each other as an accepted standard of behavior, in the context of education. It is not about the technical motivation/psychological construct of expectancy.

Generally speaking, it appears that many people don't expect much of the education system. Many parents I speak to think of school as a glorified baby-sitter. Many pupils just try to survive the system for the years they have to. Many teachers just try to survive the day. This is so wrong that it's weired. There is no reason anybody should live as if they are constantly enduring some punishment. Also, this low level of expectations perpetuates the current situation which lives down to the low expectations. Higher expectations could help drive better results. Here are a few things we should expect from ourselves and others:

Parents should expect the education system to make excellent education available for their kids. They should also expect a wide variety of available education that will match the parents’ wishes and world-view, children’s wishes and children’s tendencies. Parents should expect their children to learn. The parents may allow the children to choose what to learn, but then the kids should learn.

Children should expect the system to “see” them as individuals: To notice the kids' strengths so they can build on them, and to help the kids overcome weaknesses and temporary difficulties. Children should also expect the system to teach them how to learn, to teach them how to deal with information. In general they should expect the system to help them pursue the general skills and habits that will make their lives better as adults in the 21^st and 22^nd centuries. The key words here are “help” and “pursue”. The children should not expect anybody to do the hard work of learning for them. Everybody must expect the students themselves to take the ultimate responsibility for learning facts, skills and habits.

The teacher and school should expect the parents to take responsibility for children’s learning in the parents' dealing with the kids. If a pupil doesn't learn, or doesn't learn well enough, or is experiencing any difficulty not immediately addressed by the system, blaming the system (or anyone else) doesn't work. The closest adult who knows the child and is in a position to notice there is a need for action - is the parent. So if there is a need, the parent needs to initiate action to fulfil that need. The school should expect the parents to take responsibility for children’s learning with the parents' dealing with the education system, too. When the parents identify an unmet need or have any criticism, it is their responsibility for expressing that criticism and suggesting concrete ways to improve. There are many wrong ways to do anything, and much fewer right ways. Therefore it is much easier to spot something that is done wrong, than to find a right way to do it. Teachers, schools and the education system in general have a complex task, and it’s very natural to perform it imperfectly. The rightfully critical parents should be expected is to bundle their criticism with an intensive effort to find a better way of doing thing. If these parents don’t manage to find a better way, at least they will have a more humble and constructive attitude in their criticism.

Everybody should expect everybody to answer every single question, to adapt, to be open to suggestion and to learn. For example, if a parent questions the way material is taught, they should get an honest answer. The answer doesn't have to convince the asker that the right thing is being done, but it needs to convince the asker that what’s being done is being done mindfully. Ignoring the question doesn't work, and note that "Your request is being processed" or "it was referred to a committee" count as ignoring. "This is the way we have always done things" doesn't work: The system must consider the changing environment and expectations, and adapt if necessary. Pulling rank - “We are the pedagogic professionals” works only if immediately followed by an explanation that can be understood by the parents. If the representatives of the system can’t make the parents understand, they are not such great pedagogues, are they? (This brings to mind a quote from Albert Einstein: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

Pedagogic school staff in general should expect researchers to provide useful proven theories to drive improvement in teaching methods. Similarly, parents and students should expect researchers to provide such proven theories to drive improvement in learning methods and in ways to make the most of the students' abilities. Society should expect researchers to be a concrete (not ivory) part of a system that creates school graduates able to become contributors to society.

There are many more specific expectations that it would be healthy for us to develop. I won't try to capture them all.

Bottom line 1: As in everything else in life, each one of us who are either part of the education system or a customer of the system, should expect himself or herself to improve anything they see as needing improvement. "It's beyond my control" is just copping out.

Bottom line 2: As in everything else in life, everybody active in the education system, working in it, influencing it or being influenced by it, should expect this activity to be constructive and satisfying. It should be fun.

Data Collection - Focus Groups

Focus groups have all the advantages of a brainstorming session. A focus group may explicitly consider an issue such as the advantages and disadvantages of a proposed product design. Such a group consists of several minds working together to look at the issue, see what's understood about it and what is missing, find suspected patterns, get a sense of what it means and feels like, and in general - generate ideas. When the group member currently speaking runs out of ideas, another member may have something to say. Each member's speech or behavior may trigger ideas from other members. The group's ability to generate visibility into the issue and ideas about the issue is substantially more than the sum of the individual members' abilities (6 >> 1+1+1+1+1+1).

A focus group may implicitly react to an issue without the knowledge of the members. For example, the design of the chairs the group members are sitting on. The ruse for the focus group may be anything - like the product design mentioned above - but the moderator can stir the conversation towards how comfortable or uncomfortable the chairs are. This kind of focus group has significant elements of an observation-in-the-lab experiment, discussed later. Still, the same brainstorming-like advantages can be realized in the implicit focus group as in the explicit focus group.

As long as the goal of the current phase in the research is to generate ideas and hypotheses, to bring up creative directions of thinking, to identify problems, to prepare for a more accurate research phase - focus groups are an excellent option. But focus groups are normally rather small (around 10 people) and the members are selected according to specific considerations and not randomly. This means that by design a focus group does not correctly represent a large general population. We can’t generalize or extrapolate safely from what happens in a focus group. So if we think of the focus group as an information source capable of determining a decision or an action outside the realm of research - then there is trouble. Focus groups provide information upon which we can base a more focused research, not an action. For example, a quick Internet search brings up texts like "The focus group said there would be a market for ..." Such a statement indicates that someone is using the focus group as an clear indication about the outside world. A less worrying statement would be "The focus group indicated there might be a market for ...", which looks like a direction for a more focused market research.

Like in an interview, the focus group moderator must have good interpersonal skills, acting skills etc. Not very common traits. Even more than in an interview, the group moderator must be able to notice non-verbal communication, write it down, and respond mindfully. Furthermore, the focus group moderator needs to hear, see and respond to several people at the same time, whereas the superhero interviewer "only" needs to consider a single person at a time.

More than in an interview, the video recording should cover all the participants all the time, not only when they speak, to capture non-verbal responses to what the participant currently speaking says or does. Also, there shouldn't be a video-man moving the camera from one participant to the next, since this attracts attention and definitely influences people’s behavior. At best, there should be several stationary video cameras capturing all the participants all the time. Not very easy to do for every focus group in every research.

These demands regarding the moderator and the recording would be difficult to meet, but luckily, they are not quite as critical as for interviews. We define the purpose of the focus group as generating ideas that are the input for the next phase of a research. We don't use the focus group as the ultimate output of the research. Any imperfect results of the focus group phase can be caught in subsequent phases. The worst that can happen, if the moderator is not a superhero, is that fewer ideas will be generated or that the ideas will not be quite as well developed as they could have been. This may cause subsequent phases of the research, designed to confirm or reject the ideas, to be less conclusive. Imperfect interview data, used as the basis for the whole research results, may cause the research as a whole to generate false "knowledge." Imperfect focus-group data, used as a trigger for a more specific research phase can at most mean the research as a whole doesn't generate useful knowledge, which isn't fun, but not nearly as bad as generating fallacies.

Bottom line: A great tool for poking, prodding and generating creative ideas. As in every tool of every trade - use only for the advertised purpose.

The Interviewer as a Superhero

The interviewer must be very well trained in order to note the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In order to note the whole truth - everything about the participant's attitudes, feelings, expectations etc - the interviewer should notice everything the participant says. Also important is how they say it - voice inflections and pauses, and what they avoid saying. Beyond these voice and sound effects, the interviewer should notice all body language cues the interviewee manifests. Moreover, it is not enough for the interviewer to notice all this information, but they also need to take accurate notes of it. The interviewer should then accurately interpret all the information that needs interpretation, such as non-verbal communication: Wincing, folding arms, palms open/closed, leaning forward/backward, looking left/right and up/down, closing the eyes, making/avoiding eye contact, feet on ground stable/on-edge, fidgeting, playing with rings/hair, touching their own face - nose, eyes, mouth, ear, scratching here and there, grooming themselves, etc.

In order to note nothing but the truth, the interviewer must somehow see everything with objective eyes, not putting in any judgements, expectations, preferences or even benign thinking habits. The interviewer mustn't paraphrase, omit or add anything to what the participant says. This means that the field notes the interviewer takes must be complete. Otherwise the interviewer would have to rely on memory, which almost certainly will introduce unconscious selectivity and self-editing, compromising both the wholeness of truth and the nothingness but the truth. Even with my limited understanding of human beings, I can safely say that this is already beyond human capabilities.

The perfect interviewer should not only observe and note every aspect of the reactions of the participant, the interviewer should sometimes respond to the participant's behavior, without reacting to it. This means that the interviewer must consciously notice the participant’s feelings and attitudes as they are expressed by the participant’s verbal and non-verbal behavior. The interviewer then must mindfully decide how to behave towards the participant in such a way that will benefit the interview, and then actually act that way. This is in contrast to “reaction” which would be unconscious and unmindful, like being defensive if the participant is critical of something in the interview.

But that is not all. The well trained interviewer must avoid influencing the interviewee. neither by choice of words in the questions or between the questions, nor by voice inflections and pauses, nor by body-language. So the interviewer should be constantly aware and in control of what cues they are transmitting towards the participant. These cues may affect the interviewee, and we don't want that. The interviewer must appear impartial: Not to look as if they approve or disapprove of the interviewee’s responses. The interviewer must create and maintain the right amount of rapport: Enough to ensure the participant participates willfully, but not enough to make the participant change their responses in order to indulge the interviewer.

Of course the interviewer must not allow his or her emotions and interests to influence the interview. In the few times I was interviewed - usually on the telephone, I wasn't terribly impressed with the interviewers’ ability to lend themselves completely to the interview. Most often, their agenda of completing as many interviews as possible in a short time affected their voice (impatience) and their effort to get me to find an answer quickly, never mind if the answer reflects my opinion or attitude that were supposedly being looked at.

An excellent interviewer must be no less than a very good actor. Many of the demands listed here are the same as what is required of a good psychoanalyst. Yet, the interviewers are normally much less trained than actors and psychoanalysts. So, to be really good at it, the interviewer should be quite a bit beyond what's humanly possible. To mitigate our human failings, we can use technology. It is often recommended that the interview be recorded and then reviewed, to make sure the interviewer wrote down everything. It is often also recommended that the recordings be transcribed. There are different levels of using recordings:

If no recording is done and reviewed, the results reported by the interviewer depend on: Their notes, which are almost-by-definition paraphrased and not accurate; Their memory, which is incomplete and self-edited according to the interviewer’s views; Ultimately very inaccurate.

If an audio recording is done and transcribed: The transcript may be rephrased or incomplete in terms of the actual text; All voice inflections, pauses, mumbling etc. are lost, and they may have contained interesting information. The interviewer may complete these from memory, but then we are back to incomplete and edited memory.

If an audio recording is done and reviewed: All body-language information is lost. The interviewer may complete these from memory, but then we are back to incomplete and edited memory.

If a video recording is done at standard frame-rate, and reviewed: As long as the video angles are comprehensive enough to capture all the participants’ movements, many body language cues can be analyzed, which is great. Micro expressions, which are very fleeting, will still be lost.

If a high-speed video recording is done from many angles, in both visible and infra-red wavelength, and then reviewed repeatedly by a team of experts: This would be really nice, but it is beyond reasonable expectations for most studies in the next few decades.

In the context of FIRE: What can the facilitation Institute for Research in Education do to make researchers' life easier when it comes to finding and managing superheros? FIRE can consider providing, for example:

• Excellent interviewers for research that genuinely requires interviews
• Training for interviewers
• Assessment of the quality of interviewers
• Audio and video recording and transcription equipment
• Access and training in the use of tagging and analysis software for video and audio recordings

Data Collection - Interview

To do research about any aspect of the world, we need data about the world. There are many different ways to collect data for education research. One of them has to do with interviewing research participants, and this data collection method is the focus here. More specifically, I will look at some scientific weaknesses inherent to interviews, and how they can be minimized.

The weak link in the rigor of any scientific research is the human factor. An interview explicitly relies on that weak link - the interviewer. On the other hand, education research has to do with humans, so one cannot escape being heavily involved with that weak link. Even if we eliminate the weak-link effects of the researchers, we are left with the weak-link effects of the participants. For example, if we use a perfect questionnaire to collect data, the participants who fill out the questionnaire are still fallible humans.

It may be that an excellent interviewer can produce more accurate and deeper results than a self-report such as a questionnaire. But as in all professions, excellent practitioners are not common. And the slightly-less-than-excellent interviewer, even if he/she is pretty good, is likely to miss some cues from the participant, to behave in a way that affects the participant, to occasionally misinterpret what the participant says, and in general put themselves as part of the entity creating the information rather than remain an objective tool for collecting information. The theoretical excellent interviewer is transparent, while the real-life almost-excellent interviewer is opaque. The qualities of an excellent interviewer are discussed separately. Here I concentrate on what's inherent to the interview, and lies outside the interviewer's control.

The more qualitative the interview is - open questions, free-form follow up questions - the more the interviewer is active in the interaction, and the more the interviewer affects the results. However, if there is a need for open questions - for example when trying to check what impressions the participants have of a certain learning situation - a questionnaire may miss the point and there is no way to avoid using a human interviewer. Serious effort should be spent to design research in such a way that a minimal number of open questions. This way, the level of involvement of the interviewer can be minimized and the penalties in term of objectivity can be minimized. A second line of defense is having some open questions to be administered by an interviewer, but only in a preliminary part of the research, aimed at generating more accurate questions to be pursued in later parts of the research, using more objective methods. A third line of defense, when complicated open questions can’t be avoided, is to include - preferably close to the end of the interview - a few questions designed to check the level and direction of dependence created between the interviewer and participant. These extra questions should not be apparent to the participant. It would be great if they are also not apparent to the interviewer, but if the interviewer is an excellent one - they will know. Some examples of such questions are “Did you enjoy the interview?” or “Was the interview difficult?” or “Were there accurate enough options for the closed questions?” or “Do you feel the questions and answers in the interview capture what you wanted to say?”. If the average response for a certain interviewer differ from the average for the one excellent interviewer in the research - maybe there was too much of that interviewer in the interview.

A general tool that can help with pushing interviews towards the objective end of the scale is recording the interview and reviewing the recording after the interview. Since recordings can improve the results an interviewer gets from an interview, some detailed considerations about recordings are discussed in the context of the interviewer as a superhero.

Beyond the factors the excellent interviewer can control in an interview situation, the participant is also affected by the interviewer in ways that are outside the control of the interviewer. The interviewee may have judgments regarding how the interviewer looks, sounds, and smells - whether positive, negative or otherwise. The interviewer might remind the interviewee of someone or something that the interviewee liked or disliked: Maybe someone the interviewee is inclined to appease or to confront. A phone interview removes the interviewer a bit from the participant, therefore preventing some of the ways the interviewer may affect the participant: body-language, look, etc. It still leaves many ways the interviewer affects the participant: Voice inflections, pauses, choice of words in between questions (those words not prescribed by the interview protocol), etc. On the other hand, in a phone interview the interviewer misses the interviewee's body language information.

A hypothesis: The more open and in-depth interviews are required for a research, the more the main researcher tends to conduct the interviews personally, rather than using research assistants as interviewers. If this is true, it may mean the researchers themselves don’t believe in the ability of another interviewer to reach the same raw data as the researcher can. This would mean that the researchers themselves believe that the answers in the interview have a lot to do with the interviewer rather than relating purely to the participants. This in turn would indicate that such an interview’s meaning depends on the specific researcher conducting it. If you don’t happen to be that researcher, the interview is of very limited meaning for you.

In case this blog entry appears very negative: The fact that such weaknesses exist doesn't mean interviews shouldn't be used. It does mean they should be used with care, and whenever possible, safer methods should be used.