Theory and Policy Frameworks

Pragmatism (as a theory of practice)


Transformation (as a theory of change): But transformation does not equal change.

Change:Transformation::Incrementalism:Revolution. That is, linear, slow change may not be perceptible to the observer in the short term; it may be glacial. Transformation, however, upsets systems, disrupts equilibrium, and is significant enough to cause the system to evolve abruptly.


Efficiency/Social Efficacy (as a theory of management): Consider the transformation that resulted from the Enlightenment's one-two combination of laissez-faire economics and the mechanization of labor (Industrial Revolution) as these were adapted and adopted by educators. The current NONPROFIT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX represents less that is devoted to the public good (common weal) and more that is devoted to NEOLIBERALISM (unfettered capitalism) and SOCIAL EFFICACY/EFFICIENCY (mania for more and better, but at lower prices). Evolves from Taylorism in industry to Tylerism in education to the National Center for Educational Accountability (industrial efficiency and standardization and testing applied to schools, BUT DECREASES THE EMPHASIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT AS LEARNER). The learner is the "raw material" that is to be molded by educators according to the specifications drawn up by policymakers informed and funded by capitalists.


Regulating Mechanisms (rank-ordered; Alan Wolfe, in his Whose Keeper?, emphasizes the shrinking role of civil society vis-a-vis the other two mechanisms--especially the market)
1. Market
2. State (government)
3. Civil society (the people)


Systems--particularly human systems--is a paradigmatic approach borrowed from ecology. Emphasis is on COMPLEXITY, as set apart from a LINEARITY-based approach to "problems," "dilemmas," and anything else that threatens a harmonious and sustainable EQUILIBRIUM.

Theory is not Truth; theory is Utility. It is a means by which we address threats to the equilibrium.

If you're a hammer, problems appear to you as nails. Breaking away from the constraints of your discipline requires some measure of INNOVATION, a key element in the LBJ-ian approach to policy: If policy is a matter of how to (re)distribute
1. Costs
2. Benefits
3. Risks
4. Burdens,
then, according to LBJ, we need THINKERS, DOERS, and MAKERS who can INNOVATE.

One such innovator is BOB MOSES, a physicist who has been a civil rights fighter for decades. Instead of sticking with sit-ins and voter registration, as in the 1960s (still important, but ...), he has moved on to teaching algebra to under-represented youth. The thought processes involved in algebra are to the present and near future of civil rights as sit-ins and voting were to the 1960s era of civil rights. See Moses's Radical Equations.

Think of Capra and his Ecoliteracy Center when you relate CELLS>SYSTEMS>EQUILIBRIUM>EVOLVING. (See Capra's Hidden Connections.) All this is predicated on the notion of three underlying issues:
1. Structure
2. Relationships
3. Interactions

In Democracy Is Freedom, San asks us to consider the role of the state in ensuring fairness, equality, and human dignity. Associated with this are ADAPTIVE CAPACITY and the CAPABILITY APPROACH.

With regard to ways of knowing, how do we reconcile the "objectivity" and "reliability" of multivariate analysis with the need to cater to INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS' needs?