Education scholar calls for ecological shift to 'school within a school' to give students autonomy needed for success
LAWRENCE — The essence of schooling has changed little since the 19th century, even amid calls for change and attempts at reform. A new analysis from a University of Kansas education expert calls for a paradigm shift to a “school within a school” model that looks to ecology to make transformative changes.
No Child Left Behind was a landmark piece of legislation in the early 21st century that claimed it would ensure testing identified failing schools, which could then be improved, benefiting all American students. Yet, like changes to textbooks, curriculum, pedagogy and technology before it, the move did not transform education. The reason was it was an attempt at change forced upon an entire system, according to Yong Zhao, Foundation Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies and Educational Psychology at KU. The time has come to attempt changes at a small scale focusing on two key elements: less prescribed curriculum and more student autonomy, he writes in a new article.
“We have to acknowledge education as practiced in schools has failed generations since the 1980s and ‘90s,” Zhao said. “There have been calls to change, but we missed them. Changes were attempted, but they were not meaningful. The main piece of evidence is that generations are not doing better than generations before them. Other evidence is that Gen Z workers are being fired from jobs at high rates for not being prepared for the workforce, even when they have a degree, and because technology is outpacing what people are prepared for.”
The biggest impediment to change and meaningful education is forced curriculum, Zhao writes. Every school has curriculum that teachers are required to impart to students that takes virtually the entire school day and year, extending into students’ time away from school in the form of homework. Additionally, students very rarely have autonomy in what they want to learn or self-determination in their education.
“Are we sure the mandates for what students are required to learn are going to be valuable in 10 or 20 years? If not, who is responsible to answer for that?” Zhao said. “We also know students are not engaged with school. If we want students to be happy, shouldn’t they have a say in what they learn?”
Artificial intelligence brings unknown potential to education. Zhao and co-author Ruojun Zhong, president of YEE Education, write that technology and nature can both provide cues to how to approach implementing meaningful change in schools.
Their article was published in the journal ECNU Review of Education.
Any technology that is introduced to the market allows early adopters to try it first. If it is successful, it spreads to more consumers and, in the most successful cases, becomes nearly ubiquitous. Zhao gives the example of the iPhone. Neither Apple nor the government attempted to force all consumers to possess the device, yet it proved so successful that smartphones are omnipresent in society, even in classrooms. While forcing technology on consumers may sound ridiculous, that is essentially the approach American education takes when it requires schools at a systemwide level to adopt new methods or mandates, according to Zhao.
Inevitably, whenever change is required in schools, there are people who resist from teachers, administrators and parents to students themselves. Instead of trying to steamroll such opposition, Zhao and Zhong propose a “school within a school” approach to attempting change. Such a move would allow students and parents who are interested to take part in an approach that gives students autonomy to choose what they are interested in learning and set goals for their own education, with the guidance of professional educators.
“In every school, I bet you could find students and parents who would want to try a change,” Zhao said. “Education’s bad habit is wanting everything to change, even when we’re not sure if it is meaningful. If you force change, you invite resistance. This is a more natural, ecological process.”
The authors use the perspective of panarchy theory for the school within a school approach. The theory essentially holds that a school hierarchy of equal systems can be more effective than the traditional, pyramid-shaped hierarchy in which all influence comes from the top down to levels below. They give the example of ecosystems in nature that can be resilient to threats but slow to adapt necessary changes. Species that are successful in evolving and adapting to new ecosystems do not achieve such takeovers immediately, but gradually.
Ultimately, Zhao and Zhong propose a measured approach to providing small innovations that have the potential to grow into systemwide changes in which students are given more autonomy and less prescribed curriculum. They also share examples of schools in China, Australia and the United States that have attempted the model and report more engaged, successful students who discover their own unique strengths, learn to find and solve problems worth solving, and learn from others around the world via technology.
“If change happens at one level, it can go up to another or influence others,” Zhao said of an ecological, panarchy-based approach to school reform. “Some ecosystems are very resilient but are unable to adapt. Education has been resilient, but there are too many controls on the system, so it lacks transformability. We propose you could rely on small innovations to influence the rest of the system.”