Apparent disagreements on improvements

[Richard White <Richard.White@Approach.Com>]

Roger wrote:
>>All the ideas of competition between schools
>>etc will (IMHO) do diddlysquat because it is not changeing the system.

Then Harry wrote:
>>Given this perspective, competition between GM and Ford will
>>not result in improvements to the automobile because one is not changing
the
>>system...yet the improvements and change do occur.

And Rich writes:
I believe these two points of view do not necessarily conflict, and here's
why:
 
Ford and GM want to produce and sell more automobiles, manufactured on
assembly lines, into a firmly-entrenched system built on internal combustion
engines and fuels and an infrastructure based on intersecting paved roads
maintained separately but complementarily by three levels of government,
etc. They are covering some of their bets by doing research and development
on automobiles that would be more at home in another fuel system, in case
their participation in such a system would afford them an opportunity to
compete better in the future; say, when/if the fossil fuel supply has
dwindled sufficiently as to be less practical than some alternative. They
don't want to go the way of the carburetor manufacturers. They are not,
however, striving to change the fundamental system of transportation. They
are striving to be ready for system changes that they speculate may happen,
and they are striving to improve their performance within the existing
system. Whether their actions are driven by competition-inspired fear or by
the desire for success is fodder for a different discussion.

In the same way, schools, whether they are set up to compete with one
another or not, do strive to improve their performance, but they do not
challenge the fundamental system. The school system does not consider how it
could make itself unnecessary, for example, just as the car makers do not
consider how to go about eliminating the need for automobiles or roadways.
If they even think about such things, they certainly are not working toward
achieving them.

As far-fetched as it may sound for us to speak of not needing schools or
automobiles or roads, we must remember that every new paradigm in history
has seemed preposterous to those steeped in its predecessor. Even without
going to such extremes, it is not at all hard to imagine that our schools
are operating using some fundamental paradigm that is deeply flawed but
invisible to us. If that is the case, whether or not competition is
effective in bringing about improvement within that paradigm, such
improvement will not be enough. Radical systemic change will be required. If
I may paraphrase WED: Improving the quality of a system is not enough; you
must also be prepared to make the jump to the next system when it arises, a
process sometimes referred to as making a paradigm shift - and leading the
shift is the way to the greatest success.

So, here's my point at last: One's opinion of whether or not a particular
change to a system can bring about a desired result, regardless of what the
proposed change is, will be strongly influenced by one's opinion of what the
system's AIM is, in combination with one's opinion of the system's
fundamental suitability to achieving that AIM. If you believe this statement
is logical, then go back and re-read the comments from Roger and Harry above
and you may decide that the two of them do not have a disagreement.

Richard White
Approach Inc.
100 Summit Lake Drive
Valhalla, NY 10595
whiter@approach.com
914-769-2800