Yesterday morning I saw the
notice for the upcoming live stream unveiling of the National Assessment
Governing Board’s National Report Card on Civics, Geography and US History. Another
sign that not much has changed, in spite of the daily reality that everything
has changed.
The data in this report card will
be like the report cards students receive this year, an incomplete rating due
to circumstances beyond control, yet still a reflection of a society wildly out
of equilibrium.
Educators have become accustomed
in the last 20 years to collecting data on a myriad of minutia about their
students and their practice, and having it used to competitively measure their
students, their professional lives, and their communities. It is
mandated. Even the educational resistance got in the spirit of
measurement, facetiously giving Betsy DeVos her F report cards from teachers
across the country at the end of her first year in office.
Then came 2020 and Covid-19,
which turned everything we had been told was “best practice” on its head. All
the meticulously developed standards, tests, and step-by-step delivery methods
have become suddenly impossible to implement. The measurements which
revealed children and families were in widespread poverty and deeply distressed
no longer needed standardized tests to expose the situation.
Even if we could by some amazing
stretch of effort develop testing capabilities in the middle of a pandemic,
there is no way to deliver the instruction in a way that would allow our
students and us to be safe, and no way to compare the wildly variant conditions
of student trauma or student exposure to learning, much less create uniform
testing conditions. Literally, abandoning competitiveness has become a life or
death choice.
Everything we were told was
required is no longer possible.
Simultaneously, the economic
system we had all come to rely on as the condition for daily life, and the
standards and measurements related to free-market-capitalism began a free-fall
which all the king's horses and all the king's men could not prevent or
stop.
Everything we believed about how
life ran is no longer how things are.
Policy makers across all sectors
of society are scampering to figure out how to recover from a total disruption
of the status quo. Yet, others are recognizing that a return to the status quo
is both impossible and unwise because it would leave us all vulnerable to the
next disaster.
So, this morning I was struck,
not just by how hollow National Report Cards are at this point, but by their
connection to all the other competition driven components/sectors of our
society.
Education reform and how we
conduct our society has long been driven by two complementary opposites:
Collaboration and Competition.
A complementary opposite is also
often called a polarity. They are two ideas that appear to be opposites, and in
either/or thinking one solves the problem and the other is the problem,
depending on which pole you prefer.
To those who prefer competition,
collaboration is often seen from it’s weaknesses as ineffectual and less
productive. To those who prefer collaboration, competition is viewed from its
negative traits, and seen as destructive and elitist. Yet when both sides of a
complementary pair are exercised in punctuated equilibrium from their strengths,
the deep dives into dysfunction can be mostly avoided, and timely response to problems
are more possible. When we move from an either/or dichotomy to a both/and
view, the pair can create a dynamic energy flow that is more successful.
The standardized tests and school
report cards of our recent education policies have been based heavily on the
competition side of this particular polarity or c-pair. Those who have promoted
standardization and assessment consistently maintain that it is about global
competitiveness of our children. Just as radical free-market capitalism is
about an intense competitiveness dependent on competing against and defeating
other vendors or providers. Indeed we have reached the point that we use the competition
model of free market capitalism as the basis for most of our sectors of
society, including education, government, and even religious organizations.
Those who have resisted the
education “reform” movement have often done so based on an argument for the
other side of this c-pair- Collaboration or cooperation. As competition
measures participants in an activity against one another, collaboration
approaches endeavors as a mutual effort among participants with the goal being
for all to achieve as much as possible without it becoming an extreme win-lose
scenario. What measurement there is becomes more concerned with progress for
all than winning for one or a few.
The irony about polarities is
that while they are often seen as exclusive opposites, in reality they are both
necessary. Neither can function without the other. Each is positive and useful
when functioning at positive levels, and when both sides of the pair are in
dynamic equilibrium, functioning in their healthy ranges, both are
effective. Similarly, when either is over emphasized, it becomes
dominant, and swings into it’s unhealthy range. When that happens, that side of
the pole can create a world of problems, including a collapse of the
system.
All dictators and empires are
based on an extreme form of competitiveness. The leader or country must have
ultimate control of all others. Communes and Kibbutzes are based on
collaborative ideas, and old fashioned communism as practiced in the 20th
century was a failed attempt at collaborative economics and government. Neither
of the extremes - either dictatorships or communism were the positive
iterations of their side of the polarity, but both sides of the polarity are
required to develop a functioning system.
I am watching as those in decision
making positions try frantically to figure out how we can return our systems to
the way they were, even doubling down on more of what was. This week Michael
Petrilli from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Stanford was making the case
in the Washington Post that we should hold children back, and double down on
increased seat time and do double testing to make up for the measurements
missed to re-establish who is ahead and who is behind. There have been others
suggesting that we abandon students deemed less able to focus on the ones whom
we expect to be successful. Paul Reville of the Harvard Graduate School
of Education has been writing for The74 and Boston Globe, quickly trying to
recover dominance of influence by acknowledging poverty and systemic failures
without acknowledging HGSE and its promotion of competitiveness as having
contributed to the entrenched dysfunctional competitiveness that created those
failures.
But, if we are to survive this
crisis with the least damage possible, and be ready to meet the accelerating next
crises- whether it be a pandemic, food or water shortages, or intense weather
patterns, or wildfires, or rising seas- we will have to recalibrate our
emphasis about this polarity.
Collaboration does not preclude
knowledge of the variables and conditions in a situation; in fact, it may involve
incorporating more details, just not in the same way and not for the same
purposes. Nor does recalibration involve a total abandonment of healthy
competition. It just avoids the dysfunctional by-any-means mentality that has
us on the brink of collapse.
When Covid-19 arrived, we were
already crippled by our own deep dive into the competitiveness side of this
polarity, and our win-at-all-costs mentality continues to deepen the
crisis. We were receiving multiple signals that we were too far in
dysfunctional overemphasis on competition. Yet, we were insistently ignoring
those signals. Even our outrageous salaries for CEOs and professional athletes
is a symptom of that disequilibrium. Now we realize the effects of that
lopsided emphasis has much deeper and more damaging effects than a few out of
whack salaries.
The time when we can ignore those
signals is past. The stakes have gone up, and societal survival is at
stake. More measurement, whether by national or local report cards or
digital tracking may give us a false sense of understanding, but will not solve
the failures of our societal disequilibrium.
For more information about Managing Polarities or Both/And Thinking see the
work of Barry Johnson, Cliff Kyser, Beena Sharma, or Michael DePass at the
Center for Creative Leadership