The Problem with the Broken/Fixed Mindset

Someone posted a comment to the Education Rethink Facebook page that "The American education system was broken from its copycat beginning." I get it. We imported our system from Germany and it was broken and now we are mired in this industrial system based upon social engineering. The criticism is valid. We need to move forward. And yet . . . The words "broken" and "fix" tend to fit into an industrial language. They are the words we use for products. I might say that a couch is broken, but I wouldn't say that a tree is broken. Instead, I would use a term like "healthy" or "flawed." The problem with broken or fixed is that it treats a very human system as if it is entirely structural. It makes the assumption that education reform is as easy as throwing away the old and replacing it with something that's not broken. Or, if you are more inclined to a nostalgic vision, simply refurbishing it and bringing it back to new. Broken and fixed are binary options that prevent us from having nuanced conversations. If my only two options are "yes, the system is broken" or "no, the system is just fine," I am either an unrealistic extremist or an overly defensive, delusional advocate for the status quo. The language itself creates a barrier for the policies that we develop. What if instead of asking, "Is this system broken and should we even bother to fix it?" we asked, "What are we doing that's working and what are we doing that's not working?" Or perhaps, "How healthy is the current educational system? What can we do to create sustainable change?" See, if it's only about broken and fixed, we create enemies. It's a for us or against us mindset. But if it's nuanced, we have a chance for thinking to evolve. We create spaces where paradigm shifts happen over time. The change can be quick. The shifts can be huge. But it's rooted in a grassroots transformation rather than a process of tearing down and rebuilding. photo credit: somebody_ via photopin cc