A Single Story of Data Points
In academia, the term weltanschauung refers to a general worldview. However, when examining the etymology of this word, it is clear that there is a distinction. In short, this German term speaks to a comprehensive look at our place in the world. More than mere perception, it is a thorough reflection on experience that informs the positions taken across the span of a lifetime. Encapsulated in this difference is the role learning serves in generating thoughtful stances. In particular, the capacity to engage weltanschauung with the willingness to modify understanding when encountering new evidence, experiences, or alternative positions. Unfortunately, this lens of learning is not necessarily the adaptable mindset practiced by many who hold positions of authority within the hierarchy of public education. It is this reality that frames the argument Elmore (2019) delivers when addressing the chasm between schooling and learning. We would contend this gap is on full display when reflecting on the weltanschauung that guides our intellectual viewpoint at S.A.G.E. and recent reporting on state assessments.
Perhaps we can reduce the differences between weltanschauung, worldview, schooling, and learning to the distinction between hearing and listening. While many stakeholders hear about the disconnect between the essence of learning and the construct of public education, there is a sheer disregard to employ the listening critical to understand the rationale for the assertion. From our experiences, we have seen individuals abdicating professional responsibility under the pressure associated with the so-called "system." While this lack of listening provides the space to meet institutional demands, it may also undermine the altruistic essence from which many well-intentioned practitioners entered the field. In refusing to listen, engage, and reflect on the depths beyond the frame of self-interest within the bureaucracy, the status quo becomes fortified and far more rigid. Subsequently, such outcomes foster a divide between stakeholders, creating an "us" vs. "them" culture that is detrimental to any hope for progressive shifts.
A prime illustration of the disconnect can be viewed in the celebratory reaction many had to standardized testing results in New York State. Recently, communities were informed that assessment scores for English Language Arts had risen from the previous year. Systematically, this is very positive news for administrators, bureaucrats, and many peripheral stakeholders who receive this information with a sense of vindication for the direct instructional practices that ground these results. As we have witnessed during the many iterations of accountability measures and edicts, managers of instructional direction will use the improved testing results to become more resolute in the short-sightedness that frames teacher-centered models. While there will undoubtedly be pushback to the following sentiment, we contend that these results do more to satisfy the means of those operating the system than the learners arbitrarily tied to such time-bound metrics.
As demonstrated throughout the course of the last thirty years, a deleterious effect emerges when reading too much into the data of standardization. Specifically, this adherence to numbers leads to a blossoming of the limited worldview that erodes creativity, passion, and self-identity through the systematic labeling and grouping of learners. Moreover, as experience has demonstrated, some who are charged with planning a course for pedagogical applications will begin to tune out alternative views generated from a meaningful examination of experiences. While data has its place and can serve a purpose in the fluid and adaptable nature of learning, it should never become the objective. The economic principle referred to as Goodhart's Law expressly states that when a measure becomes the overarching goal, the tool loses validity and credibility. Consequently, when supplanting the essence of learning to a data point, the story of education becomes one of constraint, not advancement.
You need not take our word for it; read individuals like Dewey (1916), Piaget (1974), Elmore (2019), Rincon-Gallardo (2020), and the multitude of dynamic thinkers who have tirelessly advocated for learning over the last hundred years. From a cognitive neuroscience perspective, simply ignoring Fischer's (1980) Dynamic Skill Theory and the role regression plays in the fluid nature of learning denies young thinkers the capacity to meet their inherent potential. When stakeholders disregard cognitive science for the immediacy of data, all learners suffer. On the pendulum swing that public education sits upon, experiences inform us that the outcome of the news delivered to the communities of New York will lead to a vacuum of thought where the hierarchical culture will eschew the tenets of listening. We would even venture to suggest that the very basic idea of hearing will be diminished to a sound in the distance.
The "system" of public schooling is not necessarily the problem. It actually performs in the manner it was built — a linear, time-based approach to "producing" a graduating class. To that end, we assert that the heart of the challenges facing public schooling is embedded in the individuals who acquiesce to the conveyor belt mentality of that construct. When stakeholders take an introspective look and examine the drive that brought them to this field, perhaps they will be willing to use their voice to cross the "Rubicon" (historical reference; my apologies) in seeking to reimagine education as a vehicle for identity and not bureaucracy. In keeping with this line of thinking, despite being delivered fifteen years ago, Adichie's (2009) emphasis on avoiding a single story is ever so important during these times when data is king. Across our journey, we often return to this TED talk as it expresses the importance of listening in order to understand the multifaceted features that drive identity, culture, and growth. If you have not had an opportunity to view this inspirational sharing of experience, we would highly recommend the investment of time.
Resources:
Thank you to Barbara Smith for sharing this article on LinkedIn.
References:
Adichie, C. (2009, July). The danger of a single story [Video]. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
MacMillan.
Elmore, R. (2019). The future of learning and the future of assessment. ECNU Review of
Education, 2(3), 328-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119878962
Fischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of
hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477-531.
Piaget, J. (1974). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
Rincon-Gallardo, S. (2020). Leading school networks to liberate learning: three leadership roles. School Leadership & Management, 40(2), 146-162.
Comments