Nearly everyone involved in the work of improving or reforming education acknowledges the importance of the people working in our schools as perhaps the most critically important lever to improve learning. Even with technological advances, education remains primarily an endeavor driven by teachers, administrators and those in supporting roles in schools. As an extension, the success, mediocrity, or failure of our schools also rides on the qualities, capacities and talents of the people working with our students.
Hard-charging education reformers put a tremendous amount of faith in the ability of “human capital” systems to deliver educators with the abilities we need to dramatically improve our schools. Using strategies related to human resource processes like recruitment, selectivity, performance management (including evaluation), compensation, and dismissal – this “human capital” frame holds that if schools would use theses human resource processes more effectively the result would be a more capable educator workforce. This viewpoint primarily puts the individual educator as the central point where we should focus our attention and work for improvement.
Juxtaposed against the human capital frame is another viewpoint that great educators emerge from collaborative and collegial environments where educators are given the opportunity to learn from each other, plan together, build relationships among staff and students, be involved in key decisions, and work in an environment where they have the tools and resources to succeed. This “social capital” frame holds that it’s not the people that are the problem, it’s the system (or lack thereof) in which educators are working that is the problem.
It’s difficult (at least for me) to take a hard line against either of these views. It is disingenuous to argue that talent and ability doesn’t matter. Further, it is also disingenuous to say our human capital systems in education are anywhere near as effective as they could or should be. Differences do exist in educator quality that can be attributed to the capabilities and talents of individual educators. Failure to acknowledge or address human capital concerns (or the more common tactic of trying to advance some excuse or “red herring” to distract the argument) does little to advance us toward the common goal of a better education for all of our students.
It is equally insincere to argue that the systems and supports in which people work don’t matter. Anyone who has had the experience of working as part of a high quality, high functioning team or organization knows that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts and that collective capacity trumps individual heroism when it comes to delivering quality on a consistent basis. On the flip side, anyone who has had to work in a dysfunctional environment or under a tyrannical boss knows that bad culture kills productivity and creativity.
Somehow, the debate on improving education in this country has got to reconcile these two ideas of human and social capital. Too often we place them in contrast to one another when we should be considering how they can (and should) be used to compliment each other.
We aren’t going to achieve greatness through a pure reliance on draconian, Kafkaesque systems of individual accountability. We also can’t achieve greatness through the liberal use of some professional Kumbayah circle.
Talent, intelligence, and ability matter. So do connections, belonging, and love.
For the sake of the American education system (and more importantly our children), we’d better figure it out sooner than later.
Jason Glass
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 23, 2012 at 1:16 am
John Titler
I believe that the Jesuits, who knew a thing or two and accomplished a thing or two, are purported to have operated from the basic premise of “Everything in moderation”. Your statement that “We’d better figure it out…” seems to imply that there is one solution and that we need to find IT. I keep hearing that we need this or that change, when what we really need is to continue to explore and innovate and evaluate and do it over again. We will never be done and we will never find the perfect or even the best way to teach or to learn because all the variables continue to be just that – variables. I’m 64 years old and I now know less about anything for certain than at any time in my life. I do know that common sense and good effort directed toward an admirable goal will move a group or an individual toward that goal. If what we are about is to teach our young people to be good and successful citizens of their world, then let’s get going on that and stop wrangling about what that looks like for certain because it will be fifferent tomorrow. my real point is that we are spending a whole lot of time, energy and money arguing about things that we can’t change and that don’t matter. If we want to have good teaching and good leadrning, then use the practices that we know will work and let the teachers and the administrators and the kids move forward without all the politics and the posturing. There are great things happening in our schools, but you would never guess that if you listen to the messages from Des Moines. The changes that are needed are only going to happen in the classrooms and the living rooms around the state and if we constantly insist that only someone in Des Moines can tell us what those are, then they won’t happen. WE are NOT going to wait for someone to “figure it out”. We are moving and will continue to do so, hopefully the movement is forward or upward and if it isn’t we will fix it.
March 23, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Jason Glass
Thanks for reading and responding to my post.
March 23, 2012 at 10:03 am
Scott McLeod (@mcleod)
Bolman & Deal talked long ago about four essential frames of leadership. You highlight two here: Structural & Human Resource. We also need to attend to the other two frames, Political & Symbolic, when it comes to changing our schools. None of the four will suffice alone, but a comprehensive approach may get us where we need to go…
A brief overview of Bolman & Deal’s four leadership frames is here: http://bit.ly/90B9US
March 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Jason Glass
Hi Scott,
Bolman and Deal’s frames are similar, but I’d argue my post doesn’t deal with their political or structural frames much but does a deeper dive on the human resource frame while touching on the symbolic frame. Bolman and Deal teach us to apply their four frames to organizational problems, which you begin to do here.
My post really is looking at two different ideas on how we might improve the people working in schools and how those two ideas (human and social capital) shouldn’t be seen as mutually exclusive. So while I think you can certainly critique my post using Bolman and Deal’s ideas (which I think is an interesting and valuable approach), this post isn’t built on the Bolman and Deal framework.
Thanks much for reading and responding – hope you are enjoying and learning in Europe!
March 25, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Debbie Zuschlag Kirkhus
Jason,
I agree with what you write here. Recognizing that both are important is the key for today’s educational leaders. I believe that building human capital results in higher levels of self efficacy, while building social capital results in stronger collective efficacy. Both are important and have been instrumental in creating strong organizations.