Dear Fred: Just a few comments on your comments! (I'm enjoying this
dialogue.)
You wrote:
>What you say above depends on your definition of "feedback." I
>suspect that what you're driving at relates to the schools being
>closed to external information (e.g., criticisms of schools). That's
>the common usage of "feedback." A more technical definition has to do
> with information related to goals. On that score, the schools might
>be doing quite nicely, which is to say, the "feedback" confirms the
>schools' actions because it is consistent with their goals.
ACtually, I think schools are more open to external feedback than they are
to internal feedback. Or perhaps a better word than '"open" is
"sensitive." When the public is unhappy with the schools, schools do take
notice. Unfortunately, they don't often know how to respond. Most reform
movements, in higher ed at least, have relatively little long-term impact.
Internal feedback is sporadic, not because people don't have any but the
system is not well designed to systematically take that information,
analyze it, and literally "feed the results back" into the system. I just
finished visiting 7 community colleges for some research I'm doing and
even though several of them are considered to be on the cutting edge in
terms of systems redesign, all of them confessed to evaluation being their
weakest component.
>In point of fact, schools have no goals, people do. So, when we speak
>and write of school's goals, we are really talking about one or more
>perspectives of schools and one or more persons who hold those
>perspectives, not the schools per se; the schools themselves are
>incapable of holding any view or perspective.
Well, this is true, literally, and I appreciate the reminder. I think
those of us who live and breathe in these environments tend to blur this
distinction. Maybe that's true of humans in any system. You've now given
me something to agonize over in respect to the terminology I've used thus
far in my dissertation!
>Thus, what you say above also depends on your definition of "schools"
>and "culture." It seems to be the case that you mean the same thing
>because you use them interchangeably, that is, by "schools" you also
>mean "cultures."
I think that is true and I believe that schools, complex organizations
that they are, are made up of many different cultures, all intersecting at
different points.
> Consequently, when you write later...
>
> > My experience is in higher ed, community colleges to be
> > exact, and as I visit campuses either as a member of an
> > accreditation team or as I do research, I find that in
> > almost every case, colleges have a wealth of data and
> > information but no truly systematic way of analyzing it
> > and incorporating the outcomes of that analysis into
> > their operations in such a way that they can track the
> > outcomes and continue to make improvements...
>
> This bears out what I said above. "Schools" are abstractions.
On one level, you are absolutely right. But for someone like me who
spends the better part of her life in one -- and always has -- they don't
feel abstract at all. I imagine that's true for others who are deeply
involved in their organizations. But then your point is well taken in
that it is individuals who make the decisions.
>Are you referring to the administration, the faculty, the community,
>or the students? Or perhaps to the legislators who often fund such
>institutions?
In a shared governance environment such as the community colleges, it's
all of the above to one degree or another. And let me add that in terms
of information, I think it's further complicated not by technology or weak
research planning, but also by political issues. I think the availability
and use or lack of use of information are affected by political concerns
and other priorities -- agendas and assumptions that we are not completely
aware of.
>I agree that higher-ed institutions are awash in a sea of data and
>information but making good use of it isn't a simple matter of
>inserting or closing some kind of feedback loop or mechanism; instead,
>it's a matter of developing consensus amongst a contentious group
>of stakeholders.
Maybe. I'm not sure, however, that consensus is always reached on the
basis of full information. Consensus can be reached fairly easily by a
group of people who share the same assumptions, never mind whether they
are the correct ones or cover all the possibilities!
Thanks for the thought provoking comments. Harriett.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>