Micromanagement

This is a big one.  It's at the core of the problem of industrial education.  Most organized education systems are just that - organized.  They are an organization.  Usually, an old fashioned organization, with central command, and with lots of rules, bylaws and lines of authority.  And from one year to the next, there are more rules, not less.  It is all very natural: The organization people manage the field people.  Logistical, administrative, legal and political (national & local) concerns tend to overshadow pedagogic concerns, since the organization is made of more logistics and administration people than pedagogues.  Also, the non-pedagogues have more time and attention for the power-struggle.  Pedagogues are busy thinking about education…  of all things…  The organizational center is worried about controlling a very large organization with hundreds of thousands of teachers at many thousands of locations, being responsible for millions of pupils.   The natural response to this worry, taken together with the type of people and type of activities in the organizational center, often leads to strict control of the center over the field.  At least an attempt of strict control.  At its worst, this strict control is embodied in micromanagement - an attempt to control exactly who will teach, how they will teach, when they will teach, whom they will teach, certainly what they will teach, whether they will be allowed to teach one subject or another, and none of that pesky "why."

Again, all this is very natural. Education systems are very large organizations. A large organization is interested in itself, its own internal rules are enough to create a microcosm around the people working in it.  Especially the people who are removed from the field, since those at the field - teachers - are less likely to think the organization is the whole world.  The field people encounter a larger world every day through the pupils and parents.

What are the results of this micromanagement?

For pupils, micromanagement means that the teaching is aimed at a certain theoretical group of pupils, since the [micro]managers are concerned with all the pupils and they can't be familiar with all the individual students.  This theoretical group may be at the mean of abilities in one subject or another; it may have a certain learning style; they have a certain emotional state; etc.  The micromanaged teacher is not allowed to suit the teaching speed, material, method or timing to the needs of the individual pupils in front of him.  So the pupils get a lesson that is not suitable for them.  At any given time, most of the pupils get the wrong lesson in the wrong timing and the wrong way.

For educators, micromanagement means they are reduced to Modern-Times-type technicians, lacking control over their time and actions.  Being micromanaged, the teacher's own judgement is not very relevant.  The teacher has very little autonomy.  People who are good at what they are doing - be it teachers or any other profession - tend to demand a measure of autonomy.  Offer to them a job description with "subservience" as a significant component, and they will decline.  Micromanagement in education alienates many would-be good teachers, and breaks the back of those good teachers who do enter the system.  the same goes for principals, counselors, etc.

For the education system as a whole, micromanagement means that there is no room for innovation.  Innovation needs to be connected to the field.  The opportunity for innovation must be available to many people - not just to a designated innovator at the main office.  As a result of systematic-non-innovation, many education systems are the most conservative organizations one can find.  They don't change at all, and ignore the quick changing world around them.  The very world for which they are supposed to prepare the pupils.

To conclude:  Micromanagement is a natural occurence in large organizations, and is natural to education systems.  The only problems with it are that: Micromanagement of education impedes learning, impedes teaching and prevents the education system from performing its core function.

Democratize education!

Tough Choices

What choices are tough?

All choices are tough.  Inherently. To choose is to risk an error, while at the same time taking responsibility.  Very unpleasant business.

This post is a short addendum to an older one - Price of Freedom, which was a bit theoretical.  Now I can add a few more recent insights and experiences, to make the idea more real.

A few months ago my wife and I decided to look for a better school and a better kindergarten. Not for the theoretical pupil which is to become the theoretical graduate, but for our own very real children. Big difference.

We knew that our decisions are going to have a significant impact on our kids' well-being.  These decisions will affect their distant future, for example, what type of schools they graduate.  The decisions will affect their more immediate future, for example, their sense of belonging to one community or another, their contact with their friends.  Even the very preliminary decision to consider  change had an immediate impact on the children's present - they were worried about the coming changes, about the coming unknown, about moving away from the familiar.  These were the difficulties inherent in any contemplated change involving our kids.

To this distress we had the added factor of the schooling market being far from a perfect market:  We didn't know enough about what schools are available - either in our area or farther away.  Of those schools we did know existed, we didn't know enough about their qualities.  And then of course, even if a school is good for some kids, it may not be good for others.  And we have two very different children to take care of.

Until now in this text I have been using the plural "we" when talking about decisions, but the married reader is probably aware that there is never a "we" in such unclear situations.  There are two separate "I"s.  Each with its own anxieties and fears.  Trying to make a joint decision about a complex system (kids, parents, jobs, studies, accommodation, social contacts) without knowing what would be good for the kids (because it's not knowable), without having all the information about the market, without knowing the future.

Putting it more formally, school choice is done with high stakes - our kids well-being.  It is done with no internal clarity about what's right for the kids.  It is done with no external clarity about what the options are.  It is done (if we are lucky) jointly by two different people, about very different kids.  And there is no relief from the responsibility - it is ours. If anything goes wrong - it's our fault.

So, that wasn't easy at all. And it was probably much easier for us than for most people, since we are involved in education, and we have the economic privilege of being able to move.  Also, we are in the habit of making choices about our lives. There are many people who aren't used to making choices.  They think they have no choice.

We ended up moving to a place where we actually have a choice between two different schools.  We went for the democratic school.  We will know if that was a good decision in 10 years.  Maybe.

Discomfort Zone

I like working with computers.  They are predictable - kind of; they don't have complex emotions; they don't expect anything; and if I don't enjoy working with them, I can just turn them off and go do something else.  It's easy.  It's comfortable.

But over the years I started working with people, employing people, selling products and services, selling ideas, getting socially involved.  Also started a family, raising children...  Suddenly I am surrounded by people who are not predictable, have complex and dynamic emotions, expecting things from me.  I am responsible for their well-being...  I strayed so far from my comfort zone, that I am not sure I can find my way back.  The story of course is not that simple, but close enough to demonstrate the issue of comfort zone.

It seems that to achieve almost anything I want, I have to leave my comfort zone.  And I am not very special this way:  The comfort zone is normally inert, unchanging, un-achieving, restful, sluggish...  It has it place, but generally it doesn't support development.

What does all this have to do with education?

Education is a place of development.  Learning is development and change.  If a pupil remains in his comfort zone, development and change (=learning) are not likely.  Much of learning is trying new ideas and activities.  By definition, these new things are not the old comfort zone.  Even worse, trial goes with error.  Trying new things is closely associated with failure - at least at first.  I don't know anyone whose comfort zone is large enough to include failure. Those people who deal well with failure are just more tolerant of it, and recover more quickly from the discomfort of having failed.  They are flexible in moving in and out of their comfort zone.

So, learning is change.  Change is not very compatible with the comfort zone.

Also, learning involves failure.  Failure is very incompatible with the comfort zone.

Learners must be flexible outside their comfort zone.

What about teaching?  As in "standing in front of a group of people who are themselves out of their comfort zone?"  Sounds uncomfortable.  Definitely error-prone.  Sadly riddled with failure. For mortals, it's way out of the comfort zone.

Teachers must be flexible outside their comfort zone.  They are the ones who should be able to model flexibility in moving into and out of the comfort zone, so pupils can learn that, too.

So much for learning and teaching.  What about the school graduate?  Can she stay much in her comfort zone?  Since we expect the world to keep changing quite rapidly, we can expect the graduate (=ourselves) to keep learning constantly, which means we all need to be outside our comfort zone much of the time, and to tolerate our own failures.

We all must be flexible outside our comfort zone.

It is a worthy habit to develop.

Minimalist Core (Curriculum?)

What's at the core of Education?  Or, rather, what should be at the core of education?  Often we refer to "Core Curriculum," but many of us are not even sure that the curriculum is at the core.  Maybe it's the school's environment?  Maybe the side-effects of schooling, such as socialization into the larger society, are at the core?  And what is that socialization about - is it about becoming a good citizen?  A productive (economically of course) member of society?  A subservient employee? A well-rounded human, whatever that is?  A happy person?

As usual, more questions than answers.  And maybe that's good, as Isidor Rabi would say.

Without noticing it, the main question became "who is the desired graduate?"  I wrote about that some two years ago, but this time I will go towards the minimalist end.

Let's start with two levels of characteristics of the graduate:  Personal and Society.  Notice I leave the Transcendental/Spiritual outside the short-list.  Not saying it's unimportant, but feeling that it cannot be discussed and agreed upon by different people of different spiritual denominations.

Personal:
Everybody wants the best for their kids.  Different people think that "best" is different things.  No reason to formalize it in state laws.  Let parents and pupils select a school from those offered, according to their own perception of what's personally good for them.  Spirituality can fit nicely here, too.

Society:
We tend to want the graduate to be a contributing member to society, and again an avalanche of questions ensues:  What do we expect from everyone:  Economic contribution?    And how much is enough economic contribution?  From each according to his abilities, as Karl Marx would have it? Full participation in the democratic process?  And what is enough participation?  Participating as a voter? as an activist? as a candidate for a public post? as a member of the crowd cheering to a Dear Leader?  Do we expect many people to volunteer their time for civic society activities?
But the title says "Minimalist."  This follows the basic understanding that the wider the demands, the farther we get from the possibility of consensus.
So, instead of requiring everybody to be a contributor to society in many ways, let's just try to make sure nobody harms society beyond what it can tolerate.  A sort of societal Primum Non Nocere - First, do no harm. And here is my personal opinion, correct to September 27^th, 2011, 14:11:30

• Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmetic.
  Without a good grasp of all three, a person is likely to become a burden on society.  There is room for some details, such as the required level of reading, the content of arithmetic studies, etc.
• Democracy
  Representative Democracy, to be exact.  This is the modern western state-religion, and deviations from it are dangerous to the stability of such societies.  This core subject includes several important requirements
• An understanding of the mechanisms:  Voting; Parliament; Government; Judiciary; Journalism; Lobbying; Good-old-boy networks; Politics
• Various granted freedoms
• Equality
• Violence is the Monopoly of the State.
  Modern western society is quite adamant about that, and can't tolerate almost any violent behavior by individuals.

The issues above may be the only absolute requirements.  Beyond these, society - through the state - may choose to encourage (but not require) a few more core issues:

• A positive attitude towards learning
  
• Good command of English as a second language, for those who don't speak English as a mother tongue.  English won.  For now.
• A deep connection with one's own culture
• A deep understanding of the scientific method.
• An understanding of technology.
• An understanding of historical processes.
• A positive attitude towards Representative Democracy.  Did anyone say "indoctrination?"
• A positive attitude towards participation in civic society.  Volunteering one's time and efforts
• A positive attitude towards personal economic viability:  Being an effective producer and a voracious consumer of goods and services... See why I prefer to be a minimalist?

These may constitute the core of education.  What's required and what's merely encouraged.  All the rest may be left to the individual schools, teachers, parents and pupils.  No state-mandated content, teaching-methods, timetables, etc.