Replying to LO29064 --
Dear Organlearners,
Kristin < BmemyselfI@aol.com > writes
>These concepts regarding Learning Organizations seem
>so needed in our public school system. Iv'e applied
>some of the systems theory thinking in my preschool
>classroom and the changes in behavior, classroom
>environment have been remarkable. Are these concepts
>being shared with the people in the public school systems?
>I sure hope so, I think it could have a profound influence
>on our society!
Greetings dear Kristin,
I am very happy that you have had such success. I am convinced that you
are doing pioneering work. Would you care to tell us about incidents which
made the difference?
We could certainly do with more dialogue on this topic. Out of
curiosity i searched with Google's advance search engine the web
< http://www.google.com/advanced_search >
I put in the top window
public schools
and in the second window
learning organisation
I got 3,450 hits, far too many to browse through.
I decided to prune them by adding in the top window
public schools metanoia
Only those who had experiences in an actual LO will know that
metanoia is a central feature of the LO. I got 8 hits. Sadly, none
of them told about a single case study.
I decided to prune the 3 450 hits by adding in the upper window
public schools case study
This gave 2140 hits, again far too much. So i added
public schools case study wholeness
since wholeness is one of the 11 essences of a LO. I got 23 hits.
Sadly, none of them told about a single case study.
I decided to prune the 3 450 hits by adding in the upper window
public schools case study systems thinking
I got 1300 hits which is again far too much to browse through. So i
then tried
public schools case study systems thinking Senge
I got 323 hits. I went through the first 32 hits and found nothing.
I do not have the guts to go through the other 90% of hits.
Now, if i as high school teacher some thirty years ago did not self
experienced two out of many classes as "tacit LOs", i would wonder whether
this "LO in public schools" is not seeking sausage in a dogs' kennel. I
call them "tacit LOs" because they operated twenty years before Senge's
book The Fifth Discipline appeared. The one lasted for two years and the
other one for four years. Both stopped at the end of their last schooling
year.
So i think Kristin has a very valuable point here. Please, let us have
a long and fruitful dialogue on this topic. For example, if any one has
a URL on a real case study, please share it with us. I have found
one report
< http://alex.edfac.usyd.edu.au/LocalResource/Study1/Curl >
But it does not mention "learning organisation" or any of its dedicated
terminology. In other words, it might rather qualify as a "tacit LO".
I want to end by saying that each of both classes emerged into a "tacit
LO" after an incident by which all the pupils had to go for a couple of
days out of their way to care for each other. I recently had the
opportunity to examine the emergence of a study group at university level
into a "tacit LO" and observed exactly the same.
I am now strongly suspecting that an organisation is not TALKED into
becoming a LO, but is WALKED into emerging as a LO. This is very important
in transforming public schools into LOs. It is most promising that
children still care far more for each other than in the case of adults.
Thus the walk ought to be much easier than in the case of adults.
However, I would strongly suggest not trying to transform the whole school
into a LO. The first requirement is to have a principal who is dedicated
with heart and mind to such a transformation. The second requirement is to
have two or three teachers who will actually walk their classes through
this transformation. The third requirement is obvious -- both the
principal and the teachers will need an in depth knowledge on the LO.
Where will they get it?
I think that pamphlets/essays/articles are needed to attract teachers of
public schools to the idea of the LO. Perhaps the following title will
indicate what i have in mind:- Differences between a "school for learning"
and a "learning school".
I do not think that much can be expected from faculties of education in
universities. If they are not transformed themselves into LOs, they can
only disseminate information, but not walk the talk. Students as future
teachers do not need this information as much as solid experiences which
give sense to such information.
Just for the fun of it. With in Google's top window
faculty education
in the second window
learning organisation
and in the third window
transform transformed become became
i got 1 300 hits. Wow -- big talk! So i added to the top window
faculty education metanoia wholeness
and got 1 hit which is not even applicable. Ouch -- little walk!
Why so many hits? Faculaties of education just love to refer to themselves
as "learning organisations". They ought to have refered to themselves as
"organisations for learning" where that "learning" itself is dubious. Many
operate as "organisations for informing", thinking that information and
knowledge is the same thing.
You dont believe me? Well try in Google's top window
faculty education knowledge management
in the second window
learning organisation
and in the third window
transform transformed become became
In other words, substitute two vital features of the LO, metanoia and
wholeness, with "knowledge management". I got 1310 hits. Wow,
the band wagon is over crowded, is it not.
Well, let us make sure. I searched within those 1310 hits for "information
revolution". (See option at bottom of page.) I still got those 1310 hits.
Perhaps its Google's limitation to 10 key words. It might even apply to
the "search within results". Nevertheless, i know enough of hype talk to
recognise it when i see it.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.