About five years ago, while running a school in Harlem, I typed out the words “What’s your paradigm?” in 72 point font and printed them on a sheet of paper that I hung outside my cubicle. It was probably the beginning of a journey about education reform that has taken a big step forward for me within the past five weeks.
You have probably heard of the concepts of paradigm and paradigm shift. You might not know that in 1962 Thomas Kuhn published the seminal work on these concepts in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (possibly the most frequently cited book in America). Since then the terms have been adopted into our vernacular to such an extent that many argue they have lost their meaning.
I first read Kuhn’s work in college, but the concept has stuck with me over the past two decades, and it resurfaced in my thoughts over the past few weeks in a new way. The conversations and comments stimulated by my first two blog posts pushed me to consider the direction of the dialogue I would like to promote around education.
I realized that I am much more interested in engaging people about a new paradigm for education than I am in debating the merits of the strategies inherent in the current dominant narrative of reform. I want to start writing a different narrative through open and honest reflection, dialogue, and discovery.
So, I Googled “paradigm shift + education” and stumbled upon a 62 slide Power Point deck written by Charles M. Reigeluth titled “A New Paradigm of Education.” Long story short – I started an email dialogue with Reigeluth (a professor at Indiana University who turns out to be involved in some pretty interesting work around systemic change in education), started rereading Kuhn’s book as well as Joel Barker’s Paradigms, did some web research on the concept of Alvin Toffler’s “waves of change,” and began connecting the dots between all these and a couple of books by Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline and Schools that Learn) that I recently read.
My head is spinning, but I think I am on to something. Today’s post, focused on simply retelling the logic in Reigeluth’s Power Point , will be the first of several that will follow this line of thinking. Here goes…
There are two major types of change – piecemeal and paradigm change. Alvin Toffler posits that there have been three great waves of change: from hunter/gatherer to agrarian, then to the industrial revolution, and now to the information revolution. When there are great changes in society there are paradigm changes in societal systems (family, business, etc. including education).
The change to an industrial society led to the industrialization of schools that mirrored many of its underpinnings; bureaucratic organization, autocratic leadership, centralized control, adversarial relationships, compliance, conformity, compartmentalization, etc.
The needs of an information age society are much different; team organization, shared leadership, autonomy with accountability, cooperative relationships, initiative, diversity, networking, holism, etc. If these are indeed the emerging societal needs, and they are clearly different than those of an “industrial” society, then we need a new educational system – a new paradigm – that aligns with those needs. (What that new paradigm of education might look like and how to help school districts to transform to the new paradigm are the bodies if work Reigeluth is focusing on.)
This thinking makes a lot of sense to me. From it follows that the types of reform we are currently focused on today really only fit the “piecemeal” definition of change. And it all fits within the current box – let’s call it the industrial model of education box. If we believe there is major societal change occurring, then nothing less than paradigm change is necessary.
Additionally, there is another idea that supports the need for systemic change. Over the past 50 years our society (specifically American society) has become increasingly apathetic; it’s trending to more inequality, not less; it does less to help those within it who need help the most; it has become increasingly focused on the “winners” at the expense of the many; it favors assimilation over diversity.
Piecemeal changes to an educational system supporting this societal trend will at best leave us with the status quo and, at worst, reinforce the increasing divisions within our society. On the other hand, paradigm change in education can be part of a co-evolution with society, supporting it and being supported by it, by moving from a system designed for sorting students to one designed for helping all children reach their potential.
I ask you to take a minute, regardless of your feelings about today’s reform agenda, and envision a new paradigm for education. What would yours look like?
Popularity: 8% [?]
Shift the conversation from human nature as adversarial to cooperative. Expose “rankisim” as the underlying operating practice that causes mischief. Expose the great lies of scarcity and challenge the mythology of “there is never enough, more is better, and “that is just the way it is.” (resignation, the highest expression of hope)
Expose former fundamentals that do not work anymore. (Marc, you along with many, have been engaging in this.)
observe/relate the trends and patterns that seem to cause or keep these trends in place. (Again, you are doing this yet this would be an on going, nurtured operating practice of a new paradigm)
below are some fundamentals that could work for a while but beware the future of dogma.
a. Principles for seeing the “whole” and the interrelationships
b. old and NEW Language for understanding complexity, change, & uncertainty
c. Explanations for indirect relationships (tests, diagrams)
d. champion divergent perspectives converging on issues.
e. As a first consideration, assume the source of all
problems in a group to be that life changed while
points-of-view did not.[reckless persistence]
f. As a first consideration, assume the source of low
coordination for a group to be conflicting objectives
shared throughout the group, rather than individuals
in conflict with each other.
g. Replace inherited language that cultivates
fragmentation [leadership, leader, political,
certainty, conformity, winning, etc.] with language
that evokes integration and coordination.
A system of people has many different points-of-view, different interests, different ideas, and different problems. In any such system, the starting point for discussion is differences. [Note not similarities] When people are busy, with different existing priorities and preferences, there is always a natural barrier to listening, learning, alignment, and collaboration. Recognizing this barrier and taking people through it in a confident consistent manner could be a persons primary contribution. Develop this practice with EVERYONE. . no silos!
When the above is in place, the conversations naturally shift from personal complaint and what is wrong/right to what works and what does not and paves the way for alignment. The new paradigm would focus on Alignment. Needs are exposed/met, ( at a minimum addressed), yet if personal complaint persists either you are misaligned, (then can realign) or there is no commitment from the complainer,
( Like the large Boston school reported here in ED News via NYT article where the one educator who would not align with the school staff/admin/students was fired after due process of the teachers union.)
Motto(s): ” Education is not the filling of a bucket but the lighting of a fire.” Yeats
“Imagination is more important then knowledge.” Albert E. I suspect he envisioned a bit of the future we now confront.
Intention: “We get good at what we are interested in.” Brunner (sp?)
Method: ‘Each one teach one” the political prisoners of Robben island, South Africa preparing for the inevitable. Everyone participates, everyone an educator.
Historical Memories to guide us:
Success, in any form, by any measure, includes two components. An interested “other,” (in the case of children an adult), and a sense of the future and our place in that future.
“We become adapted to the lack of use of our basic resources and they respond by becoming unfamiliar to us.” Alexis Carrel Nobel Prize 1918 A warning to humanity.
First ACT Insure 100% literacy, world wide. (raise the bar PLEASE!)
Marc, that is my thin slice in regards to your question. I once had a great teacher, (probably not his originally), who said; “Ask a question and you will hear people’s strategies.”
Marc, great post. I think the list you created about 21st century/information age learner needs is a good one. The only emphasis I would always add is that schools need to create those essentials for the students and the adults in the building. The learning of the two groups occurs most powerfully when in concert. I also like the list because I find a lot of paradigm shift type writing in the eduworld focuses on the technology tools as the revolution itself, not ways of thinking about learners and learning, which could happen with or without technology. Again, thanks for your writing.
I think your focus is not process focussed enough. We can’t envision a paradigm shift until after it has happened (at least if I remember my Kuhn well enough). We need to tend to the discourse that we engage in to ensure, whatever the outcome, a high level of commitment by all involved. Marc, for more on this I’d add Jurgen Habermas and his work on “communicative action” to your reading list.
Marc and Michael, your insightful comments provide a solid philosophical and operational foundation for a totally new direction in thinking about education and education reform.
Systems thinking offers us the best chance of sustainable change for a multitude of reasons. It recognizes school change as a matter of school culture rather than policy and structure. It honors people and their motivations. It is human based, rather than mechanistic.
I respect your attempt to move away from debate about the current reform strategies and move toward writing a new story. Shouldn’t the new story start by considering the outcomes we want to achieve? And is there any doubt that our current definition is a meager measure of what an educated person really is? Any parent group in five minutes could write a better definition of an educated person than we’re presently working from. Some might argue that the current reforms are based on the idea that we have to start somewhere – but a systemic view of school change would say that we have to start with it ALL.
What a strange time warp. It’s as if I’ve returned to 1988 when I first entered teaching with all the talk of paradigms, Kuhn and Senge as the ticket to new ways of teaching and learning.
I don’t have to tell you nothing much changed in classroom practice through the 90’s as a result of these workshops except a few teachers were turned onto some great thinkers and some professional development folks made a fortune.
While I’m a big fan of Kuhn, this discussion seems fairly disconnected from what I remember as central to Kuhn’s work on one scientific revolutions, which was about how a set of practices collectively formed a paradigm and how they reinforce ways of seeing reality. I’m also not sure there is a direct application of this in education as there is science. Call me a Luddite but I don’t see some new worldview popping up in education similar to the monumental switch by Galileo or Einstein. All to often these philosophical discussions while potentially interesting, more so with a nice single malt scotch, completely fall apart when getting to school and classroom practices.
If I wanted to know about a person’s paradigm I’d spend more time figuring out what they do, not what they think or say they do. Too little time is spent looking at and analyzing practice in education. I’ve always thought the book Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance provided a great text for how philosophy and practice might interconnect. I often used passages for discussions about “quality” when I started the Odyssey School. I’d like to see more discussion about connections between theory and practice rather than discussions of philosophy totally disconnected from kids and school.
What a very American outlook – we don’t need no stinking philosophy. Having a philosophy to talk about in the first place takes time, and that’s time we could have used to do something. Because here in the US it’s more important to do something than to have an internally consistent set of beliefs and assumptions to ground our doing in.
IMHO, the deletion of foundations courses like the philosophy and history of education contribute quite a bit to the dithering we end up doing. We completely lack a shared framework of understanding so not only does the something we haul off and do (because we feel a moral urgency) fail to produce anticipated results, it prompts reactions in other people and groups that we have no way to contextualize except to label them part of the problem.
If philosophy falls apart when “getting to school and classroom practices” then I would suggest trying harder at one or the other, or maybe both. Anyone who cannot connect what they do to what they believe really needs to think about that.
Marc, I would really like to see this conversation continue and I appreciate your voice and your question. It demonstrates, in a very practical way, what interests you. I had anticipated more responses related to the direct question as there are so many quality folk that read these pages that demonstrate a passion for education, and I appreciate Mike, your use of the word “ALL” which had me consider my own use of the word, “whole.” I am inclined to spend more time with that word and how it directs me to look other then where i am habitually inclined to travel and i am interested in outcomes as a method so I will continue to ask adults with school age children what they sense is a quality education, and I will continue to ask those that are not considered adults what they think as well, so i am aligned with including outcomes as an avenue to inform the story.
Not too long ago, a teen age boy, during a discussion that included a wide range of ages, reached in his back pack and pulled out a book with a quote he loved. “No one can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.” That quote, and the implications for the value of a new narrative sticks with me. I also have a very learned friend, someone who practices all the time, who occasionally, (and most often when sipping scotch), asks this question; ‘We have 10,000 years of historical data, on human behavior, activity, and results.” When are we going to declare that experiment over and begin a new experiment?” I think this is what you are asking Marc. . .and I suspect it includes Zen and Motorcycle as Persig was certainly engaged with reconciling his past, via narrative, (Story) as narrative was his access. As it is for the “ALL” of this place mat labeled Education news, opinion page.
Mike I appreciate you seeing in my post, actual operative practices. All of what it informs the work I do with teens and adults. I am personally, and constantly challenged by the practices. Most came out of long discussions, and searching intellectual knowledge sources, experimenting and general practice, from school rooms, board rooms to auto plants, and much of it with my friend mentioned above.
I can’t help but share walking into the Odyssey School one day last year with a group of Educators from three Central European countries to find on the floor of one of the classrooms a grid of tape, familiar to me, as we had taught the process to the teacher, we call the “perspective box. It was great to see something in use, based on a theory, we turned into practice, based on what we were told people wanted to see in education. Yet I am still not certain if that engages the original question or is just a reaction to; “we gotta start somewhere!” I do suspect it begins to address “outcomes.”
Maybe this is in the ballpark of “paradigm” shift. I recently viewed on TV two, deeply smart, learned, and considered by most wildly successful in their fields pundit/authors, discuss, in a Q & A fashion, one’s recent book regarding USA President Obama and his relationship to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The author, commented on how the President never used the words, “winning” or “victory” in describing his relationship to being the Commander in Chief, leading the esteemed interviewer, in a leading the witness fashion, to say; (paraphrased) So you are saying, he does not have what it takes to be the Commander in Chief? And getting a response, related to; He, (President Obama), is distant and “so cerebral.”
I noted the question was not: What do the words “victory” and “winning” have to do with being the US Military Commander in Chief? I also noted that there was no “occurring” for either brilliant, well educated aged human to even consider it! No fault of theirs, they just lived in a world that says, that is just the way it is; an unconscious alignment.