Today we discussed three long terms known as institutional isomorphism, dynamic conservatism (conservative dynamicism), and sociocultural homeostasis. While I won’t be able to explain the three terms as well as our lecture, institutional isomorphism has to do with the institution as a living organism. Like a living organism, the school institution does what it needs to survive and is made up of the people, policies and procedures that occur within. Like breathing, its goal is to sustain itself and in the process, maintain policies, practices and philosophies. While this doesn’t sound harmful the problem lies in that our school system is quickly becoming outdated (if it isn’t already).

Dynamic conservatism has to do with utilizing new technology, but in traditional ways. As Larry Cuban puts it, “[educators] have hugged the middle between traditional and non-traditional ways of teaching”.  As great as PowerPoints are, it’s still the same method of presenting to your audience from the front of the classroom. While students are learning some useful skills which are certainly needed down the road, there are other things educators could try doing, especially with technology such as Smartboards and tablets becoming more accessible. This made me wonder why is there this disconnect between technology, innovation in the classroom, and educators? While there may be a few educators that are reluctant to change, I believe the issue lies with policy.

We know budget and cutbacks are an ongoing issue within our education system, and not all schools have the same level of technology – have and have-not isn’t anything new. But from what I’ve experienced, there seems to be a strong push to get students on iPads and to use technology without much of justification or mission statement explaining why? Yes, technology is important and using tablets is utilizing current technology; but why specifically iPads? Why not repair, update or expand existing computer labs? Who’s deciding all this? My concern is that policy makers are the ones pushing for these changes without consulting the teachers that are actually using these devices. Apple isn’t in the business of giving away their products for the sake of charity, so how did they get the monopoly in schools? Teachers know their students better than policy makers and therefore should be consulted, collaborated with, or leading the charge themselves with the system supporting their push for change.

Antonio Domasio’s ideas about sociocultural homeostasis have to do with how we feel and think and how they interact. Typically we feel first and then think and rationalize our thoughts. Our natural response to change is to be resistant; however, if we can reframe our attitude to try new things, that’s the first step to being innovative. I feel one of the main reasons teachers don’t is because they don’t want to “rock the boat”. Why not? Because the stakes are high. If a teacher tries something new and it fails, administrators, parents, and the school board would have no qualms reprimanding that teacher. Not to mention student education is on the line. I suppose this comes down to fear and needing to reframe how we as educators rationalize that emotion, and the attitudes from admin, parents, and policy makers.

So what do we do? I think teachers need to pick a specific goal and go from there. Start by conceptualizing what are our goals and then see if technology provides any devices to achieve that. Next would be figuring out ways to get those devices, whether it is as simple as signing something out, or approaching the parent committee, admin, or trustees to get the support and funding needed. If things go positively from there, the next step would be finding ways to get the word out so others can benefit. This certainly is not an easy task and will require time and perseverance, but the change we seek and not the one that is dictated has to start from the ground up, not the top down.