Subject: Root cause of the 'teaching systems' problem

Posted by Jack Harich on 12/26/2010
In Reply To:Root cause of the 'teaching systems' problem Posted by Philip Abode on 12/24/2010

Message:

On 12/24/2010 4:34 PM, Philip Abode wrote:
Is there really a teaching problem? It would seem to me that this is a big, big assumption that needs to be explored from multiple perspectives, systems dynamics, dialectical analysis, strategic analysis, political economy, socio-physiologically, and socio-ecologically to name a few depending on the analyst and his/her interests. It is important to burst the “teaching problem” myth so that we can tackle the real problem of why so many students are being under-educated or dys-educated.

Sometimes, people forget that they are in a systems thinking mode when they make such statement as "So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers."
Either I misunderstand your wording or I don't follow your logic. The author of the quoted statement is deliberately trying to move readers to systems thinking, by pointing to another portion of the system that the evidence shows is far more likely to contain the most important factors.



By definition, a system comprises many parts working together to accomplish common ends. Now, when analysts start to tear a system apart (in atomistic analysis) and begin to attribute greater importance to one part as opposed to the other, we begin to destroy at least in the abstract the structure of the system.
This debate is thousands of years old. It's a false dilemma. It's commonly presented as either thinking of the system or its parts. Every analysis I've ever worked with does BOTH. They think of the system while they are studying the parts. One can very productively engage in atomistic analysis in order to build a mental model of the whole.



I would think all parts critical to the functioning of a system are equally important for take one out and the system fails.
This depends on one's definition of "important." I started this thread in hopes of generating discussion about the tool of root cause analysis (RCA). In RCA a part is "important" if it helps to explain a root cause or is the root cause. From that perspective, all parts are not equally important.



Man-made systems have a tendency to be corrupted as well as grow increasingly inefficient overtime. This is why system review, repair and re-engineering are periodically necessary to keep the system at or near optimal functioning.

In respect of the student learning problem, it is useless to blame the students, their families and background. This only makes sense if the school were to be conceived as a rigid institution to which all students must adjust. An education writer once said that “parents do not keep their best children at home.” The educational challenge is primarily a challenge for both the educational management system. According to the upper echelon perspective, it is the superintendent and his/her senior management team that our gripes about the failings of the schooling system should be directed not teachers.
Thanks. I'm not familiar with what "upper echelon perspective" means. But based on the data of the Brookings article, "our gripes" should not be directed anywhere in the school system. It is the rest of the human system that should be examined if we are to find root causes.