Subject: Creativity

Posted by Philip Abode on 10/12/2010
In Reply To:Creativity Posted by Eric Stiens on 10/12/2010

Message:

I think Eric is laying BARE some of the core contradictions of our great educational systems and the consequences of its structure and functioning under the influence of major, and persistent environmental forces, particularly the business sector. American Educational System may appear irrational to some but I think not. I think that this is exactly what the rulers (political economy coalition that constitutes the dominant social force, society’s Upper echelon (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) really want. A system that breeds intellectual confusion, student-stacking and sorting as by grading and testing, such that very few emerge as the “talented tenth percent” while the rest must find their niche under whatever staructure the upper 10th has creacted. That is the system that is well suited for education in capitalist America.

The one thing that United States once prided herself over was the fact that they dispelled with the notion of monarch, the power of one family over the rest. Unfortunately, If monarch as in England smells like political monopoly, America’s capitalism has given us not a democratic economy, one where there are large number of sellers and buyers such that no one can influence price, but oligopolistic economy, where only a few families enjoy stupendous economic largess from the joint social product.

So you may ask what would an education system that feeds this form of advanced slavery system look like? A system that appears to me as a pre-economic institution designed to funnel young citizens into our industrial (less so), business, government and voluntary organizations. Like everythingelse in American life, the way American institutions function is determined by the temporal balance or synthesis achieved in the continuous struggle between opposites. Social metabolism is best understood as the dual process of tearing things down (catabolism) and building other things up (anabolism). We understand dialectical interaction as dynamic push and pull that goes on through Nature including social Nature. And the education system is not exempt.

The good news is that our world is continually changing. An entity on top of the heap this year is not guaranteed to persist at the top for there are forces working all the time to bring the leader down. Among the major forces in this direction include competition. Competition works along a multidimensional lines of forces that may include human efforts in research, innovation, discovery, resource acquisition (e.g. colonial invasion of weak countries and creation of asymmetric markets, bribery and corruption of supplier agents, formation of buyers/sellers clubs, competitive markets), formation of new economic relationships (as the case in South America led by Venezuela), and other means.

In the process, these forces always for adjustment on the part of the players for good or for ill. Currently, The United States is undergoing major adjustments so that she could sustain her current position or avoid slipping too badly. Whether all the noise about reforming American’s education will amount to something is really not clear. It is clear that more entrepreneurs are entering and more technology is being employed to stimulate learning.

These various efforts may yield some marginal return but I am certain will not cure the ills of the educational system. I do see two options from policy. One, we may need to change the underlying values and philosophy that have guided educational policy, management and practices since the progressive reform when business and their educational allies took control of the system. This coalition has successfully suppressed the infusion of creativity and innovation in education especially through the muzzling of superintendents, senior administrators and principals. According to Bozeman and Strassman (1990), business, government, and education are similar if not identical organizationally in two respects: middle management or control level and at the lower management (line supervision level). Where they differ, according to the authors, is at the strategic level (Anthony, 1965). In the public sector (government and education), the strategic level is believed to be under the control of political authority. This is patently clear in the education sector where the general course of action is often specified by legislative act, court decision, or presidential action. Despite the dominance of the strategic level of the organization by political authority, Bozeman and Straussman adviced that there is still plenty of discretion left for top management to use local strategy to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of educational decisions and actions. For one, they showed that laws are often written in ambiguous language so as to ensure its passage. Once passed, the manager who will translate it into action must first interpret it in the light of the problem it is seeking to solve.

The foregoing suggests that at the district level, much can be done to create greater educational value for all students. Though, researchers come across such idealistic statement that announce to the world that “XXXUSD will ensure that all students entering 9th grade in Year X will graduate in Years X+4 with the following skills, knowledge and attitudes…” Though we read such statement more often than not, there is hardly any empirical evidence to suggest that such districts have been able to achieve their goals.

As a final submission to this thread, I strongly believe that the current educational system even after all the reforms have been implemented will remain a wolf in sheep clothing. There is need to refocus on education FOR DEMOCRACY. If we the people are the basis for the development of the various organs and institutions of society, that there institutions are to serve people and of course the work will be done by people, then policy needs to make clear the purpose or mission of public education in this great country. In this country, we strive to bring newborn to meet the standards of health that has been established for them irrespective of the circumstances of their birth. On this way, we have a reasonable assurance that they will grow into a healthy adult.

Thus if we set standards of skills, knowledge and attitudes for our young ones as the enter work or college, should we not ensure that all these children meet the pre-economic standards irrespective of the circumstance of their family ? This, I believe is the necessary direction for the transformation of American Education, a revolution in the core social values of education.

Omoaregba Abode, Ed.D.