Helping Academia Realize Its Potential

Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology, Summer, 2000 by William F. Roth

OUR SCHOOLS ARE IN TROUBLE--THIS AUTHOR EXPLAINS WHY AND SUGGESTS WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. HERE HE OUTLINES THE HISTORY BEHIND THE GROWTH ETHIC. UPON WHICH OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS BASED AND THE DILEMMA WE FIND OURSELVES IN AS WE MOVE TOWARD A DEVELOPMENT ETHIC. HE SEES TECHNOLOGY AS A SOLUTION FOR OUR TROUBLED SCHOOLS.

GROWTH VS. DEVELOPMENT

Our societal ethic is in transition. We are shifting gradually from the "growth" ethic to the "development" ethic. The growth ethic, which drove the Industrial Revolution, says basically that only those things which can be measured quantitatively should be taken into consideration when attempting to improve our quality of life. It is a product of our love affair with scientific method, which has been the wellspring of our tremendous economic and technological advancement. Because growth, by definition, is based on the ongoing desire to get bigger, the ongoing quest to gain "more" of things that are physically measurable, it encourages a "scarcity mentality" (I can never get enough) and, therefore, creates a competitive environment.

The oncoming development ethic, which is actually a product of ancient Greek philosophy, incorporates the growth ethic: into something much richer. It believes that our major objective is not simply to "grow" in terms of the numbers, but to "realize and enjoy our positive human potential to the fullest possible extent." In order to do so, advocates of the development ethic believe that four inputs are necessary. The first is adequate wealth. The second is a system of governance on all levels (national, local, workplace) that facilitates development and protects against those who would block it. The third is access to the necessary educational opportunities, including the opportunity to learn how to learn. The fourth is an environment that encourages development by both stimulating and soothing.

The development ethic believes that gaining control over these resources and over our lives in general is critical. It says that while scientific method remains important to our advancement, incorporating human values into the equation as well as numbers is equally important. The development ethic encourages cooperation as the most effective means of achieving the necessary balance.

The academic community is having trouble accepting the development ethic. The modification necessary to movement in this direction--due to a variety of factors ranging from tenure, to rampant territorialism, to rigid hierarchies, to egoism, to the "ivory tower" mentality, to an unwillingness to take full advantage of technology--is not occurring as rapidly as desired. The academic community, for the most part, is still teaching and demonstrating the growth ethic mentality.

For example, education is still fragmented, still based on the analytical, "break-it-down-and-learn-the-parts" model that is foundational to the growth ethic. Classes for reading, math, spelling, social studies, science, and art are still taught separately. This might be considered by some necessary in early grades, in order to teach primary skills, but the mindset persists all the way into the graduate level. MBA programs, for example, teach finance, planning, human resources, marketing, ethics, and production separately, without the necessary attempts at integration--when integration is critical to the full development of potential.

Maybe, one suspects, in its present form academia is incapable of meeting the challenge. Maybe radical changes are necessary in the system before both teachers and students can truly begin moving toward the integrated perspective that leads to a development, as opposed to a growth, ethic mentality. A first step in understanding what has to be done is to try to map out the "mess," which, in systems terminology, means the network of interdependent problems currently binding up the education sector, and to explore their origins. Let's begin with academia's continuing hang-up with the growth ethic mentality.

THE REFORMATION AND EDUCATION

During the Medieval Period, education was controlled by the Church and was only for the elite--for the clergy and the nobility. There were two main reasons for this attitude. One was the Church's belief that education could be dangerous; that it encouraged questioning and might lead parishioners into sinful thought. For their own good, therefore, it was best to keep the common folk illiterate, to keep them from gaining access to the information and knowledge that led to such questioning.

The second, less philosophical reason, arose from the fact that each document, each book produced had to be hand-written with a quill pen and a pot of ink. The eraser hadn't been invented yet, so that any mistake made, any blotch or any misshapen letter, necessitated rewriting the entire page. Finishing a complete document sometimes took months or even years. Obviously, at that production rate, relatively few books existed. Those that did exist were treasured and carefully guarded. Passing them around didn't make much sense in terms of wear and tear, so they were kept safely locked away in somebody's library, inaccessible to the masses.