A New Normal Education

When a century “turns” the unexpected is expected to happen: society is supposed to turn the culture cycle once more, evolutionizing and revolutionizing the structure of our collective worldview. New Year’s Day, 1900, was ushered in with fireworks, big bands and new displays of electric lights. The 20th century roared in: modernizing, industrializing, mechanizing, and reengineering the world. So what of the 21st century? Like our 100 year ago predecessors, we lead Y2K under fireworks, riotous music and the city lights of Time Square. And like our ancestors, we modernized, digitized, information-ized, conservation-ized and revolutionized our world. The outcome of both “turns of century” was the progress of new normals – those unexpected changes that were in many ways expected.

the new normal

Something becomes normal – it does not start out that way. For the 20th century it became normal to drive a car, take a plane ride across the country, work in a manufacturing plant, and to watch television each night. For the 21st century it is now normal to speak with anyone at any time anywhere in the world; access any and all information ever assembled; and live in a blend of a virtual and real world. The only way a new normal can come about is, two-fold: 1) the new normal withstands scrutiny, and 2) the new normal is attractive. The culture must be primed and ready for the new normal. As it catches on, it becomes mainstay. More so than not, the new normal starts out as a revolutionary idea and over time it evolves, adapting to an adoptive culture. This language – evolve, adapt, adopt – is intentional. It should evoke a sense of life; new normals form organically. They start small, they catch on, and then, they replicate, expand and transform. The most impacting, new normals are engineered by visionaries – developed with clear intention and specific objectives. These sorts of transformational changes are subtle. In fact, the people adopting the new normal, ordinarily, cannot remember actually approving, accepting or being influenced by anything at all – it simply seems like this was always the way things were done (hence, it becoming normal). Resistance to a new normal comes from poor execution and poor timing. If a community is not ready for a new normal, you cannot push it on them.

Likewise, if the new normal is presented in the wrong manner, the community will not be receptive. The most visionary reengineers develop a method and mission which encourage change and discourage fear of that change. These people, when implementing a new normal, ask a very fundamental question: “what can we do to improve, grow, and thrive?” Typically, this question needs to be followed up with: “what changes do we need to ensure success?” Notice the onus placed on the leader – the agent of change must take responsibility for the change, but must also be focused on the needs of the organization or community. This is the quality of the postmodernist Information Age – leadership that serves and that is sensitive to the needs of its followers. The Postmodern Era, heralded by the Information Age, is changing exponentially. New technologies, new connections, new philosophies, new economies, and new aesthetics are all, the hallmark, of the new normals of Postmodernism. Organizations which hope to not only survive, but thrive, need to adapt to these new normals. But above all, the new normal must be genuine. The new era is very confusing and as it changes more and more rapidly, it only becomes mired in too many new techniques, new solutions, new methodologies, and new practices. Each of these, of course, proposes ways to improve effectiveness and efficiency. But are these genuine?

a call for institutional change

The change agent and the organization are faced with hundreds, if not thousands, of buzzwords. This is true for so many arenas: business, education, medicine, media, and government. But a buzzword is not genuine and it is not beneficial when striving for true change. The difference lies between organizational change and institutional change. The former of these models targets functions where the latter targets entire classes of organization (North, 94). Classes, unlike organizations themselves, serve society on a grander scope. Organizational change focuses so narrowly on specifics: management/leadership styles, processes, and teambuilding.

This is how the buzzwords evolve – a new fad in management or leadership style, a new system for processes, a new teambuilding exercise, etc. – these buzzwords simply point to symptoms, not systemic change. Institutional change, on the other hand, is a complete shift in paradigm, targeting core principles. An organization is dictated to by the institution; ie., an American public school exists within the district, within the State and within the US Public School system. Institutional change is a transformation of: the physical, the theoretical and the metaphorical structure; the governance and maintenance practices; and above all, the social rules and norms influencing, shaping and conditioning the institution (North, 36, 55). A CEO, owner, dean, department chair, principal, or other leader is faced with immediate choices concerning change. First, the leader must determine whether or not change is necessary. Second, the leader must determine what sort of change is necessary, if at all. And third, the leader must evaluate the different methods and choose the best for his/her organization. Change is necessary. I argue that it always is – the way things have always been done, will not suffice. Change is inevitable, and if we look through history it is the one constant factor in every society, culture, and discipline. Oftentimes the practices of before serve as the basis for new innovation; but regardless, resistance to change is futile. And in our fast-paced, hustle-bustle world, the need for change is more evident than ever before. The cultural cycle is turning, and society is ready for institutional change. Leaders often make the mistake of looking at “quick fixes” – those buzzwords of organizational change. Such words include: dynamic, synergy, empowerment, going forward, proactive, logistics, collaborative work, immersion, and alternative assessments. No matter your organization, you have probably encountered such words.

Why?

Instead of implementing true, systemic, institutional change, organizations and leaders often rely on the “band-aid method” – attack the symptom, put together a quick fix and continue to repeat mantras to help the organization buy into the model. But we need to move beyond these words. Because when we simply repeat them over and over again, they lose their meaning. These words start to become “oatmeal” – just bland, lifeless, terms that you vaguely remember hearing in a seminar or workshop. The 21st century is calling for institutional change, not organizational change. This is supported by Grace Lee Boggs, the ninety-six-year-young activist, who has commented on this very notion of institutional change through her procedures of evolutions, revolutions and the advancement of the humanness in the human.

Boggs, author of Revolution and Evolution in the Twentieth Century, Conversations in Maine: Exploring Our Nation's Future and The Next American Revolution (among other great works) was interviewed by Bill Moyers June 15, 2007 for his PBS program Bill Moyer’s Journal. In this interview Boggs explored the relationship between evolutions and revolution, in terms of the institutional change needed for the new, 21st century person. She says, “People think of evolution mainly in terms of anatomical changes. I think that we have to think of evolution in terms of very elemental human changes. And so, we're evolving both through our knowledge and through our experiences to another a stage of humankind. So, revolution and evolution are no longer so separate” (Moyers). Boggs calls for such humanness evolution through the development of new normals. But these new normals must be fundamental – they must target the very core of the way we envision society and culture. This is not surprising, as Boggs has been intimately involved in civil rights, civil liberties, and other movements since the 1950’s – all of which have called or call for a deep reflection and examination of cultural norms. During this interview, Moyers asks Boggs if the triple-threats of yesteryear still affect American society today? These threats being: materialism, racism, and militarism. He furthers his inquiry by asking if these threats prevent American progress and humanism? (Moyers). Boggs responds: “…not only have those [threats] not changed, but people have isolated the struggles against each of these from the other. They have not seen that they're part of one whole of a radical revolution of values that we all must undergo” (Moyers). She goes on to add: “I believe that we are at the point now, in the United States, where a movement is beginning to emerge. I think that the calamity, the quagmire of the Iraq war, the outsourcing of jobs, the drop-out of young people from the education system, the monstrous growth of the prison-industrial complex, the planetary emergency, which we are engulfed at the present moment, is demanding that instead of just complaining about these things, instead of just protesting about these things, we begin to look for, and hope for, another way of living. And I think that's where the movement -- I see a movement beginning to emerge, 'cause I see hope beginning to trump despair” (Moyers).

According to Boggs these issues are solvable through the education system. Boggs has spent her life educating through action, reaction and pro-action. For Boggs, information is not only power but is also the seed of progress. She illustrates the need for information and literacy through her husband and fellow activist, Jimmy Boggs’ struggles: “He saw himself as having been part of one epoch, the agriculture epoch, and now the industrial epoch, and now the post-industrial epoch. I think that's a very important part of what we need in this country, is that sense that we have lived through so many stages, and that we are entering into a new stage where we could create something completely different…” (Moyers). The institution of education is powerful. As Boggs identifies, education alone can affect society on a national and cultural level, in comprehensive and rapid ways. She calls for a new, 21st century social change and sees the education system as one of the vehicles (if not the vehicle) for this change. But what of the organizational changes to education? We know that there are deep rooted, systemic issues in the public education system and we know that, like business, education oftentimes relies on the buzzwords for quick fixes. But when education relies on these buzzwords it not only cheats the learning of its students, it cheats society of the cultural change that is needed. The vast infrastructure of the institution of education makes it “too big” – how can an institutional change be implemented?

the new education

Through the series of white papers that follow, I am going to rely on some unconventional terminology to describe how the new education will form. Unlike buzzwords, these terms point to systemic issues. I needed a succinct vocabulary to: 1) describe the core issues of education, 2) identify how these issues can be corrected, and 3) develop a true discipline of institutional change. But how does this differ from say using terms like: synergy, forward thinking, or alternative methods? The terms I have put together are organic. Like forming new normals and implementing institutional change, the process must be organic – it must be practiced, honed, adjusted, adopted, adapted and consistently improved. That is why I chose this unique and specific vocabulary; the words are elemental ideas which embody amoebic principles. These can withstand the fast-paced changes of the 21st century, while balancing the needs of the leader and his/her followers. Like education itself, these are powerful, loaded, seed-vocabularies. We will start with a pair of words, which through the subsequent papers, will be more richly defined and utilized. Autogamy and allogamy are methods of fertilization. There are no other descriptors which better describe the institutional change of education, than autogamy and allogamy.

Allogamy refers to the cross-pollination of ideas – that seamless blending of sources to create integrative, interdisciplinary education. Autogamy is allogamy’s polar opposite. In this educational discourse these terms will also refer to how instructors and students interact. In the autogamous model the instructor dictates the information to the student, in essence, forcing the data into the student’s memory. In the allogamous model, information is exchanged and shared in conversation. This information mixes from the different student sources, just as the information could mix from different resources during independent work. Although these terms originate in biology, I am not a biologist; however the metaphor is so analogous between educational models and reproductive processes, that it is almost intuitive. I am going to rely on a short, yet provocative, article in the 1995 edition of the Journal of Theoretical Biology by K. Dawson to explain the difference between biological allogamy and autogamy, and then I will explore this analogy to education. In the article, The Advantage of Asexual Reproduction: When Is It Two-fold?, Dawson explains that autogamy is the process by which an organism self-pollinates or self-fertilizes, being the lone source of genetic information. This happens through: fission of the parent, budding, forming bulbs or tubers, or the offspring growing from a fragment of the parent (Dawson 341). Dawson focuses on the different advantages of asexual and sexual reproduction by “clarify[ing] the distinction between these alternative advantages, particularly in situations where both may contribute” (Dawson 341). Dawson’s hypothesis is that asexual reproduction is advantageous when organisms need rapid population growth while in stable environments.

On the other hand sexual reproduction allows for greater genetic diversity which is better suited for rapidly changing environments (Dawson 342 – 345). Evolutionarily, organisms adapt either asexually or sexually depending on the constraints of their surroundings. Environments that have a consistent climate, steady rainfall, abundant energy resources and low predation, do not require organisms to change in order to cope with these steady, reliable conditions. On the other hand, environments with variable conditions consistently put pressure on the organisms to change, adapt and survive. If we draw a parallel to educational models: institutional and societal environments which are consistent can rely on the autogamous transfer of ideas, whereas environments in flux need an allogamous method. Like I said this analogy is incredibly intuitive. To further the point, current biologists look at DNA and genes as merely codes of information (not unlike software codes). This means that biologic processes, especially those concerning evolution and reproduction, are really just transfers of information (Dawson 342).

What is education but a transfer of information?

We can actually push this analogy even further – the self-pollination vs. the cross-pollination of ideas also involves another biological correlation: the ecosystem. In small ecosystems, organisms benefit from a relatively stable, closed environment. As we have discussed prior, genetic diversity is not necessary in stable enclosures. Remembering, of course, that genetic information is just that – information – we can surmise that small, enclosed environments favor the self-pollinating model. The 20th century was a vastly smaller world, than the 21st century. Globalism, technology, and the marketplace have expanded the boundaries of the 21st century world. As this “ecosystem” expands, the autogamy model is no longer useful. A larger ecosystem requires more genetic variation to ensure survival via adaptability. Likewise, in a global marketplace, the cross-pollinating idea offers information diversity which, later, we will establish leads directly to innovation, self-actualization and ultimately a culture of creativity. So when we speak of autogamous models vs. allogamous models, we are simply referring to the varying methods of information exchange. In the 20th century educational model the autogamous transfer was ideal.

In the 21st, we will see that allogamy offers best practices. Using this metaphor, we can establish a fundamental structure for both 20th century education and 21st century education. Instead of constantly listing these structural flaws or advantages, the simple usage of allogamy or autogamy, as terms, can immediately point to the entire system. Allogamy, or autogamy, refers to a worldview and a complete, closed class of institution. So unlike a buzzword which aims at organizational change, these sorts of terms address institutional change, beginning with the immediate contrasting qualities each metaphor points too. We are on the brink of an extremely exciting and fragile historical, cultural moment. In a Boggsian way, we need to evolve from 20th century autogamy through a 21st century, allogamy revolution.

references

1. North, Douglass Cecil. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. Print.

2. Moyers, Bill. "Bill Moyers Talks with Grace Lee Boggs." Bill Moyer's Journal. PBS. 15 June 2007. Television.

3. Dawson, K. "The Advantage of Asexual Reproduction: When Is It Two-fold?" Journal of Theoretical Biology 176.3 (1995): 341-47. Print.