Products of the System

When a child is a young star athlete, they stand out. They are the ones who play soccer or basketball and dribble from one side of the field to the other and no one touches them. In football, they are the child who is the running back/linebacker moving from side to side making everything happen. In baseball, they rotate between shortstop, centerfield, and pitcher. When that child is on the mound or at the plate, you know it. There is a different sound as their pitch hits the catcher's mitt or their bat cracks as they hit the ball. At early ages they are simply better than the field.

As these athletes get older, the field thins out to be only the stars. The talent difference for the most part diminishes and we look for where the athlete fits. The system the athlete starred in now becomes a key factor in identifying both the past success and future possibilities of the athlete. Football is a great example of this. In college, many offenses play the spread offense. This is different from the NFL. As a result many quarterbacks and offensive lineman are questioned in regards to their potential in the NFL. The concern is can they transition between systems or are they simply a product of the system.

Basketball is the same way. In college you see a myriad of schemes. Syracuse's famous zone defense, the triangle offense, motion offenses, isolation offenses, the Princeton offense. Each of these schemes are very different and players that play within these systems are questioned as to whether it is the player or the system that drives the athlete to success. In the NBA, scouts and general managers look at the success of second round pick Draymond Green and question how did they miss him. The underlying question is Draymond Green a star or a product of playing in the Golden State system.

While for athletes in many sports, we often have multiple systems available to promote success and drive innovation, the same is not as true in education. Essentially, we ask each child to learn the same things at the same time. We move them through a grade-based system in which every mistake penalizes them, focusing them on achieving perfection the first time out or selecting courses at a lower level so that they will not receive as many penalties. Reshma Saujani points out in her fantastic TED talk, that this is even more true for girls than boys. We systematize our students to become risk adverse. Rewarding innovation only within a slim context of content area production.

The results are worrisome and staggering. When employers indicate the modern student isn't ready for the work force, the reality is that the modern student has worked within a system where the only goal is the minimize mistakes to maintain an acceptable level of achievement. Rarely do we cultivate a system in which children are encouraged to try new things, look at problems (not simply more questions from a textbook), and create new solutions. Rarely do we create an environment in which team success is paramount rather than individual mistake avoidance.

This week, Tesla unveiled the Model 3. An innovative electric car aimed at mass-market production. The product itself is a combination of numerous innovations. Each product Tesla has made relies on risks, creativity, out of the box thinking and team collaboration. Tesla, like Apple and Google, need workers who are not simply risk adverse, but are willing to explore, try, fail, innovate, create, and collaborate. Is our system creating these products or will our students need to rise above the system in  order to be successful? If they need to rise above the system, is it time to reconsider our work?

Think Different