I believe the design thinking approach could make a great impact on the education reform movement. Education reforms have a terrible track record of success. Some of the brightest people create the most advanced, well thought-out plans for improvement that ultimately fall short in implementation. Why? According to educator and author Charles Payne in his book So Much Reform So Little Change; The Persistence of Failure in Urban Schools, most reform programs fail to take social barriers into consideration, i.e. the people. Reformers get entirely too caught-up using the traditional problem-solving model; analyzing test scores alone to identify problems. Design teams would gain great insight from going into the schools to observe and study how they function.
Implementation of this model won't be easy though. The reading spoke about how the prototyping phase exposes unforeseen challenges, but what if those problems require greater reform? Would it be cost effective to continue with the product implementation? In the education system, gangs, teachers unions, ineffective administrations, and low expectations (amongst other things) hinder the success of education reforms. In order to effect lasting change, these issues must be addressed. A private company intending to sell a product and make a profit may abandon the product idea because it is not cost-effective to tackle these problems. The government can’t do that.
Is the education department capable of implementing this model? Considering the government's tendency to lag in adopting new approaches and the increasing pressure to see results of reforms instantly, it will be a formidable task. However, the design-thinking approach is fundamentally optimistic and, at least, deserves attention by education reformers. It is an innovative approach to change and has the potential to lead to a more comprehensive reform plan that addresses the multi-faceted problems of the public education system.
Katie,
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, I agree with you. I agree that traditional education reformers are too caught up in the same old solutions for reform- few of which ever work. Schools are always ready to extend the school day, increase the focus on English, math and science, or impose more stringent discipline policies.
The problem is that the entire business of education reform (and yes, I do see it as a business) addresses the symptoms of a failing system. It is easy to blame the kids, or the teachers' unions, or even parents, but isn't the real problem our larger social ills that allow some to access to high quality educational opportunities and not others? As a country or even a world, do we really have the will to serve adequately the needs of all people? And like you, I also think “gangs” are a problem – think of the dangerous gangs of incompetent teachers, administrators, superintendents and policymakers who continue to cast the success of our students on the ash heap of broken promises.
In 2001, George Bush said with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), more commonly known as No Child Left Behind, that the real problem is the soft bigotry of low expectations. While I agree with this to an extent, I am more concerned about the hard bigotry, the discrimination, the racism and classism that allow these problems to persist. Low expectations for students who look a certain way, talk a certain way, speak a different language from our own, or have different abilities are rooted in more than low expectations.
The achievement gap is nothing more than the educational manifestation of larger social inequality. Can design thinking address the gap without addressing these larger beliefs? This I am not sure of.
But let’s look on the positive side. We could use more “positive deviance" in education. Let's continue to highlight those schools and systems that work. Let's figure out what they are doing and replicate it. As a funder, I know that these things don't always take more money- just better thinking. As quoted in the reading, "To have a good idea you must have a lot of ideas." The same old ideas in education reform will not get us where we need to be.
So I wanted to answer the question you posed: "Is the education department capable of implementing this model?" (the model of design thinking). Although many would argue that Secretary Duncan has been one of the most innovative and forward-thinking secretaries this nation has seen in some time, I would have to argue that no, the department (i.e. the government) is not capable of implementing this model. Mostly because they have failed at the first two steps in the process: inspiration and ideation. Many of these decision makers have not spent real time in schools. They are providing solutions without really understanding what the problems are. Moreover, they are not open to divergent thinking. It is too often seen as the obstacle and not the route to innovation in far too many school settings (Brown, Wyatt).
Yes, this design thinking model deserves attention from education reformers. But let’s alter the way we define “reformers”. The leadership will not come from our government. Instead, we should look to communities, parents, teachers and even the young people themselves.