Now take the curriculum approach I just described in the last
posting, the managerial approach, and make it more formal, more organized, more
of a give and take between components of the educational organization in
question, and you have the next approach to curriculum, the systems approach.[1] A product of the theoretical work of the
1950s and 60s in the social sciences – the work, let’s say, of Talcott Parsons
in sociology, David Eastman in political science, and others – this view
emphasizes, at the risk of oversimplifying, the interactions of an
organization’s components. The entailed
social action is based on symbolic recognition and manipulation through its
mechanisms of communication. Such social
activities strive for equilibrium as the organization deals with the challenges
it confronts. In doing so, it must
satisfy certain systemic functions, such as production or maintenance, to some
minimum degree, in order to keep on doing its work. The theory gets quite involved, but for our
purposes, let me just point out that this approach is concerned with how the
different cells within its structure interact.
The cells of a social system are the individuals who occupy the various
roles that make up its structure, both individually and in collectives such as
departments. When one is considering a
school district of any size, the cells, their relations, and their relative
levels of influence and power tend to be formally defined, although the
approach does recognize informal power relations as well.
When applied to curricular issues, therefore, the
practitioners who apply this approach engage in using charts and diagrams,
flowcharts and organizational charts as they speak of stages of development and
implementation of curricular planning (usually sequence is important: development, design, implementation, and
evaluation). This is focused on the
processes by which curriculum is formed instead of any content or scope. All this is organized by use of systems’
language. Terms such as subjects,
courses, unit plans, and lesson plans have become the terms that that language
uses. As with the behavioral approach,
an approach that has had quite an influence on the systems approach, the
adoption of systems by businesses has influenced how schools and school
districts have gone about their operations.
In addition, its prevalence in the military has also had an effect. Some would claim that its application has
made large organizational arrangements possible by providing the theoretical
wherewithal by which to devise the necessary structural and procedural elements
a large organization demands. For
example, the contribution of the Rand Corporation and its Planning,
Programming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS) have introduced ideas about how to
organize and carry out essential processes which large bureaucracies need to
perform in order to establish and maintain order. Levels of organizational complexities have
characterized many larger social arrangements and, in the end and to varying
degrees, have functioned successfully enough to proceed with their activities. Therefore, the application of the systems
approach is deemed essential for national and transnational corporations to
work.
A pioneer in this field who has had a large impact on the
question of success and how it is defined, observed, and accounted for, is Ed
Deming and his 14 points, known as total quality management (TQM). This innovation placed great emphasis in
regarding clients’ (in the case of school districts, students’) priorities.[2] Some consider the work of Deming and his
contribution as a paradigm shift. Keep
in mind, “customer” satisfaction is easily lost if the entity under
consideration, be it a business, an industry, the military, or any government
bureaucratic division, is of ample size.
Deming’s work has pointed out that to be “satisfying” to the client, the
organization has to be in possession of “profound knowledge.” That is, knowledge that is based on systemic
thinking, theory of variation, theory of knowledge, and knowledge of
psychology.
Systemic knowledge is more of a disposition to appreciate how
complex the system is. The system is
made up of many cells (actors) engaged in many interacting actions in a dynamic
setting(s) in which functions are either satisfied or in the process of attempting
to be satisfied. The theory of variation
is acknowledgement that those actors are individuals (or collectives of
individuals) with varying motivations, emotions, viewpoints, and the like, which
again, adds to the complexity. In order
to function, levels of respect and civility must be maintained. The theory of knowledge is a recognition that
expertise is necessary and that any actor needs to be able to identify it, give
it its due, and learn to work with it in a collaborative way. And knowledge of psychology simply refers to
the need for each participant to not underestimate the human needs of each
actor, including him/herself.
In terms of schools or school districts, all of these
qualities are utilized in the development, design, implementation, and
evaluation of curriculum. The good news
is that Mr. Deming’s work brings the systems approach close to what I would
consider a federalist view. If
implemented, I would consider the resulting organization an association, one in
which the actors would consider themselves in partnership with every other
actor within that organization. In such
an arrangement, each entity defines his/her (or their) interest(s) as mutually
advanced or obstructed by what happens. The
problem, though, is that the tone of systems’ thinking does not lead to such a
view. Systems’ thinking, I believe, is
too compartmentalized to engender the level of collectivism it demands. By collectivism, I am not referring to
socialist arrangements in which individualism is sufficiently disregarded. Instead, I mean a collectivism in which each
individual fully consents to the formation or the joining of the organization
in question and is allowed and encouraged to function as Deming proscribes. And, in addition, the possibility of such an
arrangement is, as presently manned and organized, beyond the realm of possibility
when it comes to the majority of schools or school districts. While I believe this, it does not mean
schools and districts cannot take steps toward the Deming ideal. The paradigm shift that needs to take place
exists not only in the theoretical field, but also in the hearts and minds of
those who fill those systemic cells.
And what’s the likelihood of that happening? To have it happen, one needs a united view of
curriculum; the strategic plan of a school or school district has to have
enough of a coordinated plan to be subject to the type of systemic product
which Deming assumes. Let me share a bit
of inside information. On our academic
campuses, those who argue for the benefits of a singular academic field of
curricular studies make up a small minority.
Most academics who deal with curricular questions see their provinces of
concern to be a particular subject area, such as social studies education, and
look with disdain upon those who suggest a curricular field of study and
research that would cut across subject areas.
Therefore, I don’t see where academics or, for that matter, their “off springs,”
the resulting teachers and administrators the academics have trained, adopt the
disposition that would view the national educational arrangement as the kind of
system in which Deming’s ideas could take hold.
In general, I would further say that systems theory or approach as it is
used, is still more of a mechanical view than an organic one, seeing
organizations more as machines than as organisms. Therefore, its use is more of an engineering
effort than a clinical one.
[1]
Again, I will base most of the factual accounts
of these approaches on the work of Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P.
Hunkins. See Ornstein, A. C. and
Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
[2] My small editorializing here is that the true clients
of a public school system make up the total populous of a given school
jurisdiction of which the student is but a part (but that is an issue for
another time).
No comments:
Post a Comment