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.

In the newest issue of Time Magazine there is a curious (mostly for its remarkably one-sided treatment of the issue) article on national educational standards in the US. The author, Walter Isaacson, is a clear advocate of the most rigid forms of standards and assessment, i.e. “this” is what should be learned and we test to the gills to assess it.
Included with the article is a brief interview with education secretary Arne Duncan. He has some interesting ideas about how to solve the US education problems. First, he thinks students should spend more time in school; lots more time. He wants longer school days, a longer school week, and a longer school year. One might even be led to believe that he would like most for children to simply move into schools at a tender young age and stay there until they’re ready to graduate. Secondly, he supports “alternative routes” for teacher training, i.e. suggesting that current teacher certification requirements are too rigid.
The comical part of all this is that on the page before the Duncan interview is a table ranking countries by their outcomes in international student surveys in math and reading (not included in the online version of the article). Topping both lists is Finland. In Finland, students start school later than in the US, their school days are shorter, and the school year is roughly the same. There are national curriculum guidelines but not the incessant standards based testing we find in the US. Teacher certification requirements are very demanding. Master’s degrees are required and only the best of the best are accepted.
So, here it is, sitting right under Duncan’s nose, that more time in school need not make a difference. Rigid standards and assessment need not make a difference. What makes a difference is that teachers are highly qualified and have the flexibility to do what is needed to help their students learn (Duncan suggests that “teachers give students knowledge” – I don’t think so).
The Finnish example suggests that there are other, potentially more effective, ways of achieving the educational goals we strive for. For example, one way would be to standardize around teaching processes. Rather than testing the students to death, we could use a sort of “total quality control” formative evaluation to ensure that teachers do everything they can to meet students’ learning needs.
Before anything like this can happen in a country like the US, there needs to be significant change in the underlying system. In the US it seems like education officials have become so engrossed in standards and standards based assessment that they can’t even entertain the notion of even slightly more radical change. But, I think there’s another reason for this. US educational institutions (and this probably goes for many other countries as well) are so resistant to change that the only possible reforms are incremental. They’ve launched themselves onto the standards and assessment path and can’t change course. To get around this hindrance we need firm and decisive leadership. I’m getting the sense that Arne Duncan might not be it.