Joe N. posted Jun 4, 2014 8:06 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9478804) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > GS Chandy > >The 'goals of ANY system' will always be as > >perceived by someone or another - and surely they > >will be subject to the contradictions and distortions > >of the 'perceiver'. This fact is not in question at > >all. > > What could possibly be the goal(s) of the educational > system here or anywhere? It could only be construed > from the millions of goals that exist in the minds of > its millions of stakeholders. > Yes. > > One could I suppose try > to find some statistical facts that would outline the > general shape and features of such a vast body of > goals, ... > No need for statistics AT ALL!! (or for any of this kind of 'fancy footwork' I guess would be the appropriate term).
All that's required is that the present stakeholders put down - in writing - what they perceive to be the goals of the systems their forefathers have earlier 'non-designed' (by default as it were over millennia, when 'systems concepts' were not available for actual application), which non-design the present stakeholders are now continuing, as seen in any and every forum of discussion.
Anyway, to move into a 'regime of system design', all that's needed is that the stakeholders tell each other (and themselves) what they really want or desire to see in place (for their educational and other systems).
- -- Joe N.: ....;
- -- Kirby Urner: "To integrate Computer Sciences effectively with the whole of education" (or whatever, in his own words, instead of these that I've put up here);
- -- Haim: "PUT THE EDUCATIONAL MAFIA IN JAIL!" [A] (Anything else he'd like to suggest would also be most welcome);
- -- Wayne Bishop (WB): "BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!" [B] [if he's still pushing for this 'Reid Lyon slogan'] (as in the case of Haim, WB is also welcome to add anything else he wants at this time);
- -- Robert Hansen (RH): "Children must be PUSHED (or GOADED) to learn math!" [and everything else, doubtless]: 'C' - (I understand RH has now added "ENCOURAGEMENT" to his 'desiderata for education', if I have the appropriate phrase. View my lack of background in (American) English poetry, it is entirely possible that I haven't adequately captured the subtleties of RH's thoughts. Anyway, as should be pretty clear by now, RH too would be welcome to add anything he wishes to his desiderata);
- -- GSC: "To design an *effective* educational system for the US" (properly speaking, I would probably be serving as 'Facilitator' and therefore would not inject any ideas at all, my role would be just to provide my understanding of how OPMS is to be applied in various situations and circumstances. However, I'm here putting this up for illustration's sake. I must confess that I'm 'cheating' a bit here, as I already know how the whole exercise will turn out, from having developed the models involved in quite some detail for the Indian scene); ... ... ... (the literal "millions of goals that exist in the minds of its millions of stakeholders")...
... No hassle at all regardless how many millions of goals there may be - let EVERYBODY have their say! We'd accept ANY idea and EVERY idea that anybody would wish to provide - INCLUDING stuff like 'A', 'B' and 'C' above-noted.
Later, we would do a little modeling, and we would find that all of that "vast body of goals" (the commonsense ones at least) would, if they were systemically realistic, would clearly CONTRIBUTE TO the very ambitious goal:
"To design an *effective* educational system for the US" - which would be Mission 'M'.
(In due course, the consensus would develop that 'M' would be fine for all worthwhile purposes and intents. A good bit of rubbish, like 'A', 'B' and 'C' and hundreds or even thousands of 'bad ideas' would be flushed down the drain in due course).
This 'initial modeling of goals' would, I guess, take a couple of months or perhaps a little longer. Not to worry! You in the US have already spent decades in running 'round and 'round the mulberry bush in pursuit of an effective educational system (as have we in India), so a few months here and there won't make for catastrophe now.
In any case, when people come to realise that 'M' is fine for all practical purposes, we'd start by asking our 'First Trigger Question':
"What, in your opinion, are the THINGS TO DO to accomplish 'M'"?
Ideas should flow in plenty. Of course, we would initially find that many of the 'rubbish ideas' that we had thought had already been 'flushed down the drain' are repeating themselves. Again, not to worry. Let the people have their say... It does take time for people to arrive at an effective 'systems understanding' of the fundamental relationship "CONTRIBUTES TO".
In due course, stakeholders would have a good list of acceptable THINGS TO DO to accomplish 'M' - developed *IN CONSENSUS*.
When that state is reached, we'd be ready to initiate modeling of an Action Plan showing how the THINGS TO DO "MAY CONTRIBUTE TO" each other and to 'M'. Meanwhile, stakeholders would also be finding out just how characteristics, circumstances and etc would "HINDER" or "PREVENT" 'M' (as well as all the THINGS TO DO that would actually contribute to 'M'.
This development of a *CONSENSUS* Action Plan may well take a year or so. Not to worry. It does take time for people to develop a *CONSENSUS* understanding of how to overcome the BARRIERS, DIFFICULTIES, THREATS and WEAKNESSES confronting them.
Effective systems ARE likely to take time to develop. Not to worry - after all, we have already spent decades, even centuries, developing 'educational machines'. So why crib at spending a year or two to develop effective working 'systems'??
Check out, if you will, the attachments to my post heading the thread "Democracy: how to achieve it?" - see http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536 for some useful information about practical 'tools for translating thought to action', namely, Warfield's approach to systems science and the OPMS as a working aid to problem solving and decision making in the real world.
If, after that, you feel like actually using your good ideas to develop effective educational systems, try using the OPMS for some 'simple' Missions to begin with. Let me know of any difficulties you may confront - it's likely I encountered them earlier and may be able to help out. If not, I'm fairly sure we can *put our good ideas together*, i.e. *integrate* them (which includes getting rid of the bad ideas that are always floating around the mindspace). > > ... but it would almost certainly be incoherent in > itself, distorted, and contain contradictions. I see > no need, or even possibility, to separate out > perception from reality here. > You're wrong.
The process suggested (developing a 'systems understanding' of what "CONTRIBUTES TO" actually means) helps very significantly to remove many of the contradictions and distortions, the incoherence that develops from thinking and working with 'pure prose'.
Not all the incoherency is removed, I accept. I believe that *an effective modeling tool for the transitive relationship "IMPLIES"* would, when developed, help to remove some more contradictions, etc.
That is quite a while away at this point of time. In any case, I really don't believe we need to seek 'removal of all incoherence, contradictions, distortions - all we need to do is to get to a stage where we can work 'systemically' towards understanding our systems and seeking to accomplish system objectives.
[*an effective modeling tool for the transitive relationship "IMPLIES"*: Of course, as Robert Hansen has informed us, "I and all the other experts know everything about "IMPLICATIONS" (words to that effect) - so we might well save plenty of time, effort and also money by just seeking his suggestions about the "IMPLICATIONS" we may encounter. I believe I had indeed at some stage requested him to clarify "IMPLICATIONS" for me, but he did not respond, alas. So I'm left to my own poor devices such as OPMS].