Features
Leading with ‘impact’: A possible counterpoint to tribalism Tim Logan tries to move beyond ‘us vs them’
‘At present, opinion is divided about the subjects of education. All do not take the same view about what should be learned’ (Aristotle, The Politics, 384–322 BC) Optimistically, Christakis suggests a way to temper this tribalism. By levelling our analysis ‘up’ or ‘down’, we can connect with other identities and perspectives that may unite rather than divide us. We could shift a level ‘up’ to the ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson, 1983) of unifying national or supranational identity – such as French, European or ‘Afropean’ (Pitts, 2019). Alternatively, we could shift a step ‘down’ to the level of the individual, in order to connect with the common humanity that resides in all of us. To provide further illustration, Christakis draws the metaphor of
24
differentiating two adjacent hills. As we stand and compare one, at 300 feet high, with another much taller at 900 feet, we interpret significant differences between the two hills. However, if we were able to transcend our particular perspective, we would realize that these were, in fact, two mountains of very similar height (10,300 feet and 10,900 feet) shaped by powerful tectonic forces, our distorted magnitudes caused by the fact that we had been viewing them from a plateau at 10,000 feet high. In my view, this understanding of our natural propensity towards tribalism (for good or ill), and ways to transcend it, is a productive avenue for considering how we might similarly accept, but rise above, our educational tribalism. Shifting our focus ‘up’ to the level of the ‘impacts’ we want to have on our students might provide a way to gain the unifying perspective we very much need – an acknowledgement of the shared plateau on which we are all standing. In a significant recent development in accreditation of international schools, this shift is an important feature of NEASC/CIE’s ACE Learning accreditation protocol. Based on Curtis and McTighe’s (2016) work on the Input-OutputImpactTM framework, ACE Learning transfers our strategic focus from outputs to impacts. This helps us to move beyond debates about programme design, qualifications, curriculum and instruction (though we will return to them, of course), in order to concentrate primarily on our intended outcomes for our students – where we might find consensus. According to Curtis (2015), impacts represent a school’s ‘highest goal for student learning, often [though not necessarily] spanning academic areas.’ Impacts are longterm, performance-based learning outcomes that deepen over time and involve autonomous transfer of the acquired attribute/aptitude to new situations by the student. To take this analysis further, beyond their duration and depth, impacts may be clearly visible in the ‘processes and products of student learning’ (Curtis, 2015). However, others – such as value change or character development – are more intangible, posing interesting ongoing challenges for ‘capturing’ these impacts. Similarly, while we set out to produce particular impacts, the diversity of our students and the complexity of our communities may also produce a range of unintended impacts beyond our intentionality and control. However, despite such complexities, the desired Autumn |
Spring
As human beings, we have always told ourselves stories in order to help us make sense of our situation. One of these abiding stories is an ‘us vs them’ narrative, which runs deep in our collective culture and psyche, with fascinating and unexpected consequences. In his enlightening new book, Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society, Nicholas Christakis excavates the biological reality of this tribal narrative that is, he maintains, an evolved feature of our ‘social suite’ – the set of characteristics that has helped us to flourish and build the (generally) functioning society that we now enjoy. Despite contributing to the inevitable notions of difference and otherness, tribalism has been essential in enabling us to identify as part of a manageable group and build cooperative relationships. It almost goes without saying that, in our current turbulent times, this tribalism is evident everywhere – in our fractured politics, in our mainstream and social media, even in our divergent approaches to knowledge and truth. In our educational debate too, anyone who has spent any time on #eduTwitter in recent years will recognise similar trends: vocal proponents of ‘knowledge-rich’, ‘research-informed’ approaches failing to find much common ground with ‘21st century’, inquiry-centred advocates. But stepping back from our myopia to take a longer view, it is clear that this tribal debate in education has been raging for thousands of years [see Robinson’s (2013) illuminating book charting the history of the trivium (and Stephen Taylor’s great review in IS Spring/ Autumn 2015)]. So, this is nothing new!
| 2019
