To: Marion Brady
Dear Marion
I found your curriculum proposal really very interesting. I really liked
your 5-piece framework. If you are not familiar with Checkland's soft
systems work, you might look that up - he has a similar 6-part system
mapping process acronymed CATWOE - for Customers (beneficiaries or victims
of a system); Actors (participants in a system); Transformation (the
action which takes place in a system); Worldview, or Weltanschauung (the
mental models of those involved in the system, including those describing
it); Owners (those who can cause a system to cease to be; those who govern
and manage system conduct); and Environment (physical whereabouts of the
stystem and surrounding systems).
I liked your pragmatic notion of tacking on, not reinventing. It would be
helpful for me to participate if you could suggest some more detail.
You've obviously thought quite carefully about this. How might history
class, or maths, or French, look with a more holistic perspective,
accepting your idea of "add-ons"? Are you thinking, short-term at least,
of exploring a current curriculum through more use of the five framework
questions, to engender more familiarity with whole system thinking?
I certainly believe the cognitive state/worldview element is really
important in education. Our crumbling educational edifice in the UK was
reinforced a little by introduction of this kind of discipline into the
National Curriculum, in asking for, say, historical descriptions from the
point of view of various players (Agincourt as presented by the French
King's PRO, that kind of thing). It sounds a little too pc for many
people's liking, but it does emphasise that there is really only opinion
and worldview, rather than "facts" per se in many cases. Checkland
describes Concorde as "a system for supersonic passenger travel" or "a
system to waste taxpayers money whilst polluting the environment" or " a
system to persuade the French to let the British into the European Union".
All of them might be right. It just depends where you stand. I think it's
good to learn that things aren't always as they seem, things aren't always
as they are presented, and that other peple can have opinions which are
real to them, so should be treated with respect. I try to use it when my
kids ask me about, say, religion, or life after death. It's a little long
winded to say "This is what some people think, and this is what other
people think, and this is what I think, and this is what someone I met
said she thinks" and so on..." butit's an important part of the jigsaw for
me.
Anyway....
The notion of involving architects and practitioners of organisational
learning and development in education is a beguiling one. In industry we
tend to take the products of an educational system and complain about
them, or as some larger firms are doing, plug in remedial action. Again,
what are your thoughts on a way to make this happen if any?
John Peters
Editor, The Learning Organisation Journal
Director, Red Swan Consultants
--
john peters (johnpeters@gn.apc.org)