George Siemens, at the Connectivism blog, has written an interesting article that highlights several of the difficulties associated with open approaches to education. Siemens focuses on the policy changes needed to make open resources viable for education. There are especially two points that Siemens makes that I think are most relevant and I agree with entirely. First is the systemic nature of education, and especially, that education is made up of complex systems within systems. Second is the need for more future oriented thinking in education. This latter point is one that I highlighted in a recent post, although I put it more in terms of the tendency for reactive policy making in education. Siemens’ point (at least one of them) is that change in education tends to be incremental because these two points are seldom addressed.
I am in total agreement with Siemens regarding the issues of the systemic nature of education and the need for future oriented policies. However, I think there is another equally important issue that Siemens misses and that is often left unmentioned, especially in discourse about technology and educational change. This is that policy making is a very difficult process and changing educational policy even more so because education is so closely tied to society, culture, and individuals’ value systems. Siemens says, “When trying to change a complex integrated system that includes numerous stakeholders – such as universities – a seat is required at the power table.” This is certainly true, but I would argue that in the case of education, especially when significant change is involved, a “seat at the power table” is not enough. The type and level of change we can expect to achieve will also depend on the social values of the broader stakeholders, which in the case of education includes the general public. Before we can expect considerable change in education, we have to ensure that those changes are consistent with society’s values.
Ensuring consistency with social values can take at least two routes. The first is that expectations for change are modified. This is the most common process and usually results in lesser expectations. The second is to change the value system. This can be a lengthy and complicated process but is most likely to result in significant change. There are some successful examples of the latter. One of the most talked about (and that I tend to mention a lot) is Finland (See for example Hargreaves, 2008). Finland has radically transformed their educational system over a couple of decades. What I think are a couple of the key developments in Finland that have facilitated these changes? First, the social status of teachers was raised considerably to one where they are a trusted authoritative voice on educational matters. Second, educational policy is closely integrated with several other policies that have to do with social change and economic growth. Thus, they have created a society that values and promotes change and is able to bring about change fairly rapidly based on expert authority.
Many people point out that a country like Finland has it fairly easy in this regard because it is a largely homogenous society. This is certainly a viable point, but I still think that the Finnish experience can provide valuable lessons for any society, including multi-cultural societies. True, greater cultural diversity will probably make the change process more difficult, but it’s still a reasonable goal.
Hargreaves, A. (2008). The coming of post-standardization: Three weddings and a funeral. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), The future of educational change: International perspectives. (pp. 15-33). New York, NY: Rougledge.
Tryggvi Thayer, Ph.D.
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Usage Rights
-
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy