Educational change and the political brain

I'm sitting with some teachers on a Friday evening and one of them, Federico, has been teaching for five years.  Fred is in his late twenties but could pass for a teenager.  He has on a red-and-white striped shirt and he looks like Waldo of the children's books, except for the darker hair.  Fred has a lovely smile, a twinkle in his eye, and lots of enthusiasm. His students adore him.

Fred says, "I haven't been teaching for long but in the time I've been here, I've seen many changes.  I mean there's the class-size cap and all-day kindergarten.  There are instructional coaches and literacy blocks.  There are school improvement plans and a push for improved EQAO scores.  And I've heard about a 90% graduation goal too.  Why so many changes?"

The more experienced teachers in the group look at me and shrug.  Where to begin?  So I try to explain, "Fred, let's order a beer." ...

An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen on March 6 began with the following, "Believe it or not, psychological studies demonstrate that good guys make the most appealing political candidates." http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Ethics+power/8053326/story.html.  The editorial then talks about B.C. Premier Christy Clark but I suspect it could apply to any number of politicians including our former premier, Dalton McGuinty.

Even though I haven't seen these psychological studies, I believe their findings.  Why? Because I've seen the changes described.  There's something strange that happens when someone is elected to political office, to any office even school trustee.  People start treating you differently.  It doesn't matter if no one ran against you and you were acclaimed, doors open simply by virtue of holding office.

Doors open both figuratively and literally.  When I was first elected, people who had known me for over a decade immediately started calling me "Trustee FitzGerald."  They held the door for me and insisted I enter the building first.  Frankly it was unnerving.  I am all in favour of holding a door out of courtesy but not out of deference.  It's taken six years of saying, "My name is Pam." and holding the door for others to get things back to normal.

Some may say that I am demeaning the office but I believe respect should be genuinely earned and that all people merit human respect.  If it was limited to doors, it wouldn't be so bad but there's a pitfall to deferential treatment.  I started to describe this in an earlier post and it is well described in the editorial.  Power corrupts most everyone in subtle and not so subtle ways.  I've seen it in other politicians.  While trustees don't even have much power, I've still seen it in myself and in other trustees.  .

Some would-be politicians stand for office because they have higher aspirations but often people run to help right a wrong or to improve public services.  They're often motivated out of a sense of wanting to help others and there's nothing wrong with that.  But then they're elected and they hit the brick wall of political reality.  Most find that the wrong they wanted to right or the people they wanted to help are under the jurisdiction of others -- either under another level of government or a different agency, or the problem is administrative and under the auspices of bureaucrats or staff.

To their surprise, politicians find that the scope of their work is limited both by legislation and by the real or assumed power of others and that their work often consists of editing and approving legislation, regulations or policy written by others.  There are wonderful episodes of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" available online that help illustrate this, particularly the one entitled "The National Education Service."

As a result, there is frustration among politicians who do not wield much political power and it is up to the prime minister, premiers, mayors, or school board chairs to keep this frustration in check.  At the federal level, this is done through a party system that controls nominations, appointments to committees, or access to the prime minister.  At the municipal and school board levels, there aren't formal political parties but there are different constraints.  Still politicians at these levels are somewhat freer to vote their conscience or act.

What happens when politicians who have gone to a good deal of effort and some expense to be elected discover that they have little real power?  Well, many look for other ways to leave a mark and that is where the conferences and experts come in. Politicians attend conferences and hear about all the wonderful things happening in the field of education in, let's say, Singapore or Great Britain.  Of course, the experts are there to sell their ideas and they are unlikely to say anything that casts doubt on their program.  A politician who likes what he hears and who has some clout, let's say a premier, might have the ability to start discussions with the expert immediately.  Other less powerful politicians might try to think of ways to influence their colleagues to support the implementation of a new program.  This process is called leaving a legacy.

Let me say that many of the experts do have something tangible to offer.  There wouldn't be buyers if they didn't.  Professor Michael Fullan is a particularly successful educational expert who is well known for many of the programs that allowed Dalton McGuinty to fashion himself as the 'education premier.'  The problem is that there is a seemingly endless supply of educational experts and good programs but there are only so many hours in a school day ... with the following result:

• Change becomes the norm with an overall increase in stress for individuals and the system.
• The curriculum becomes heavier.  If educational experts show that children can read or learn calculus at a younger age, expectations are created that often create a new norm.
• The curriculum becomes more structured and standardized   As the curriculum becomes heavier, more information has to be taught in a shorter period of time.  Instructional methods are developed to do this and teaching flexibility and perhaps creativity are reduced.
• Other less-valued subject areas are reduced or removed from the curriculum. Perhaps history or geography is paired up with other subjects or embedded in other curriculum.  Perhaps the music class is gone or theatre arts time is reduced. Perhaps there is only one phys ed class requirement in high school.
• Often new programs are not fully funded.  As well, bureaucrats are needed to implement and monitor the changes and there may be a corresponding reduction or change in the roles of professionals or other school staff.

This is how we have come to have constant educational change -- experts have something to sell and politicians or even senior bureaucrats looking to leave their mark buy.  Students and teachers?  Well, their job is to accept endless change.

"So that is how we arrived here today or at least that's how I see it.  I don't think there's any blame involved.  It's simply about the dynamics of the system."

"But," Fred asks,"if you could, how would you change the system?"

I reply, "Fred, I don't think it's easy but there are two things that might help.  The first is to develop a better understanding of the problem and the second is that we should be careful when implementing change.  Every change should be rolled out as a pilot project first and over a period of time so that unintended consequences can be noted and addressed.

And we should recognize that we are working with children and their lives will be affected by our actions.  We should act with more caution and humility."


The views expressed in this blog are my personal views only.