Existing and Potential Educational Systems

Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Paedagogica-Psychologica

Existing and potential educational systems

Florea Voiculescu

„1 Decembrie 1918”University of Alba Iulia

Abstract:The study represents a systemic analysis of education focused on the macrosocial / macrosystemic levels. We have approached the concepts of education system and training system and we have offered three models of analysis of existing or potential education systems: the first model distinguishes between hierarchical systems and network systems, the second model distinguishes between the comprehensive and the selective systems and the third model focuses on entrance examination based systems and graduation based systems. We have also highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each system as compared to the others.

Keywords: education system, learning system, types of systems: hierarchical, network, comprehensive, selective, entrance examination centered, graduation centered.

1. Introduction

The most comprehensive level of a systemic approach to education is that of education / learning systems, seen as final subsystems of global social systems (state and/or national). The use of the term “education system” has a history that overlaps to a great extent, the history of the term “system”which is used in other social and human sciences, primarily in sociology, economics and psychology. Currently, the term education system is part of the current teaching terminology and it appears in most dictionaries. However, we can not say that there is a total consensus on the meanings of the term system and the realities this term designates.

One of the problems of the systemic analysis of the education system is the relationship between the education and the learning system. In the approach proposed by S. Cristea (2000, pp.337-339), education means a very large and diverse reality, represented by the ensemble of economic, political, cultural institutions / organizations and human communities in a given society, which directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, play certain functions and educational roles. In this context, the learning system is the main subsystem of the education system, which includes all institutions specialized in designing and carrying out the functions of education in formal and non-organized specific contents and methodologies.

Other authors do not operate with a very clear distinction between education and learning systems, preferring the term educational systems (V. Chis, 2000, p. 85), and the extension or the restriction of the concept of system are made depending on the dynamicsof the concept of education.In other words, as the modalities and structures of education are expanding and diversifying, while gaining minimal attributes of organized educational activities, the education systems, in turn, expand and diversify their coverage.

From our point of view, we assume that, beyond the theoretical debates, the education systems have emerged and evolved as a reality. And indeed, as the expansion of education at a social and gradually institutionalized scale and a wider background of social evolution there appeared the necessity to coordinate activities and structures of education at a macro-level. The history of education cannot be isolated from the history of the social systems in which it appeared. On the one hand, the characteristics of current education systems have taken the "natural" features of social systems in which they arose and evolved. On the other hand, deliberate and planned intervention, including the influence of policy options and / or economic determinations determined some directions and ways of organizing the education systems. Therefore, the current education systems are the result of the combination ofnatural developments, determined objectively, beyond the control of planners and guided developments, which are deliberate and sustained by legal, economic, administrative and political mechanisms.

Therefore, a systemic approach to education should not be limited to analysis of the education system seen as an institutionalized education system, more or less centralized or decentralized. As Hamelin D. remarks (1999, p. 724-725), "the notion of education system requests a corollary of guiding and planning. At this point, the concept of system can only be a very approximate translation of the ministries of education charts. "Obviously, this approach replaces the concept of a scientific analysis system and of the cognitive system with a concept and an analysis of the bureaucratic administrative system. Preference for using a dual terminology, which distinguishes between education systems or "public education" and learning systems, refers to the inclusion of training organized as a subsystem, in the hyper-complex system of social networks.

The requirement to distinguish between the education system and the learning system is not only terminological, it does not aim only at avoiding overlapping of meaning between the two terms, but also methodological, as dictated by the necessity to distinguish between two different situations, i.e. visibility and the operational mechanisms. We refer to the fact that a real system of education is presented in a two-sided analysis:

a)the visible facet of the system consists of the official relations, in the structural and functional institutional regulations contained in the legislation, i.e. everything that makes up an education system or a system of public education, in short, the learning system is just the visible facet of the education system;

b)the invisible or "hidden" facet lies in the mechanisms underlying latent structures and functional effects they generate on the visible side of the education system – i.e. the learning system.

For example, a school system officially organized on the principle of centering on the pupil can bring through some of its formal structures and mechanisms, an effective system of education focused on school or teacher.This change should be referred to and / or recognized as an official system. It does not matterwhether "hiding" the real way the system works is intentional or is the effect of a latent structure. The most important thing is that the systemic analysis should focus on both instances. From this perspective we shall show several types of education systems that can be identified in the actual functioning of the learning systems.

2. Hierarchical systems and network systems

One of the landmarks according to which education systems are qualified lies in its organization and internal functioning. Whatare the current education systems like? In a study on this topic, V. Chis (2000, pp.85-100) distinguishes two main types of education systems: hierarchically organized systems and network organized systems.

a) Hierarchically organized systems have a “hierarchically developed structure, from bottom to top, from elementary education to higher education and lifelong learning." Such an educational system is characterized by:

-univocity of inputs and outputs, consisting in the fact that "students’ choice of alternative forms (types of schools, training methods, etc.) in case of difficulties or special requirements as a result of learning is extremely limited" and "students who do not adapt to the pace of study according to year cycles and learning cycles are likely to remain out of school, they may not achieve certification stages at secondary and high-school levels";

-unity and the compulsiveness of the curriculum for the entire school population in a cycle of education, which means that "plans and curricula can be varied as long as enrollment in each cycle there is only one type of school and standard requirements so that "alternative in case of failure is the orientation towards special education";

-the paradigm of "adapting the student to the school demands" reflects very well the functioning of the educational institution in relation to the social community and with the students, being both “the product of the unitary structure of the system and a consequence of the compulsory curriculum";

-focus of school on academic performance, which results in the "development of a small group of students with betterperformances, but at the cost of multiplication of learning disabilities among broad categories of students" and "as one advances towards the upper schooling cycles, the number of more performing students decreases, and the gap between learning and the curricular requirements becomes wider ";

-the management component of the educational system is an exact copy of its structure, meaning that "all management functions are distributed hierarchically on three levels, from top to bottom: superior management, concentrating the main functions of management, decision and control (Ministry of Education);intermediate environmental management, invested mostly with administrative functions (school inspectorates) and the technical and executive management (the schools). "

b) School systems organized by the network modelare characterized by contrast with the hierarchically organized systems. Thus, "their structure not only grows vertically from the bottom up, but also horizontally by multiplying the types of schools in a cycle of education." Network type education systems are characterized by:

-diversity of inputs and outputs, consisting of "the existence of alternative forms (types of schools, training methods etc.) corresponding to the real variability of the school population in two aspects: students' learning abilities and the learning requirements of individuals and the community";

-diversity of the curriculum and the wide range of optional activities, the compulsory curriculum represents only a fraction of the total curriculum that is only "investigating elements absolutely necessary for the access to culture and social inclusion of individuals, with each school having its own concerns for "developing a local curriculum while the training process plays an important role in individual curriculum";

-the paradigm of "adapting the school to the demands and opportunities of the student’s training"reflects very well the functioning of the educational establishment in relation with the community and the students. School does not operate with the requirements and possibilities of a “model student," but with those of all students;

-management is decentralized, "the schools operate on the principle of autonomy and central management replaces local management. In the same way, decentralized management (...) is associated with the development of partnerships with the family and the community.”

3. Comprehensive and selective systems

The marker according to which one distinguishes the two types of systems is the manner in which the operation of the system allows movement / mobility of the students on pathway steps (levels, cycles) of schooling, with two opposing versions:

-free movement, dependent only on the student’s option and motivation, a situation when the student selects his/her school;

-restricted movement dependent on passing selection filters, situation in which the school selects its students.

In fact, the factor that selection of one or another option depends on is the competition for admission (entrance). If there is no competition, then the idea of selection is useless. We shall further on stress the fact that, although the usual meaning of the term competition for admission has been stabilized with particular reference to the admission to post-compulsory education (secondary, vocational, university), assign a meaning greater competition, defining it as a specific type of relationship to be set and / or being promoted between the entrances and exits of steps (cycles, institutions) education system from kindergarten to university.

From this point of view, competition refers to the ratio between the capacity of schools at the entrance is lower than the demands or / and the outflows from a step are higher than the carrying capacity of the upper step, so only a fraction of graduates can be admitted. Of course, it is not only about quantitative differences, but also (mostly) structural and / or contextual differences. For example, we talk about competition when many parents want to send their children to a particular school, but that has no vacancies, even if there are places in other schools less than requested. Of course, the typical situation is the competition from the entry into high schools, colleges, universities, profiles and specializations required.

The problem of competition in access to education and, in connection with it, the problem of selection, have profound implications in any case more profound than might appear at first sight, and most of these implications directly address the efficiency and effectiveness of education, both as a process, and as a system. What is better, more profitable, and more efficient? With or without competition? To what extent does selection provide significant competition? To what extent does the lack of competition affect the quality of education? Finally, what and how much is gained and lost by each of the options?

Instead of answers, we propose an analytical model that distinguishes two possible types of education systems, according to two types of options on the operation: the power of inclusion and the power to reject.

1. The System based on optimization enrollment is essentially a comprehensive and open system, which operates under the principle: it is preferable to include all students who wish to attend a particular school and / or expertise, even those who are weaker than to leave out even one good student. In other words, I assume the risk of a including one hundred weak students in order to avoid the risk of excludingsome of the best students. Obviously, such a system fully promotes teaching optimism, considering the current situation of a student - resulting in his previous route - no matter how weak this is - is not a sufficient argument to treat them with suspicion and to cancel them the right to choose the school he/she desires. Briefly, the operating principle of such a system is the ones who want enter, only those who can finish.

The system is capable of high returns because learning builds motivation and it can facilitate interaction between motivation  learning  developmentwhich is able to stimulate educational progress even at modest levels of students’ capacity. The idea is that students who attend the school, the profile and the specialization they want will be more strongly motivated to learn than if they were forced to attend a school they got to in lack of something better. However, it is not inconceivable that, given the motivational support of systematic efforts, students at entry, had a low level in terms of capacity, the initial deficit to catch up.

There are other arguments in favor of a power system based on maximizing coverage. Some are moral arguments and can be synthesized in response to the question: To what extent is it correct that the current school situation, resulting from an earlier period, to "condemn" a future student to repeat the past and to cancel a chance to overcome their condition? Other reasons are social and can be synthesized in response to the question: To what extent can society afford wasting even a "small part" of its human resources?

2. The system based on the power of rejection is essentially a closed and a selective system, which operates on the following principle: it is preferable to repel all students that cannot be trusted to attend a specific school and / or specialization, even among those that are good or can be recovered, only to admit even one poor student. In other words, I take the risk of excluding a hundred good students, instead of risking to include even some of the weakest students. Obviously, such a system promotes a moderate or no pedagogical optimism, considering the current situation of a student's poor results in his previous route and this is a sufficient argument to treat them with suspicion and to limit his/her right to choose the school he/she wishes. Briefly, the operating principle of such a system is:the one who can is admitted, only the one who can graduates.

In terms of learning motivation, the scheme may yield differentiate results:

-For students admitted to the school they want one is to expect that motivation might act as a contributing factor, and summing "positive" with the high level of capacity for them to ensure a successful educational and vocational route and school excellent results;

-For students who get rejected and by redeployment or admission to a school they do not want, it is expected that motivation could not be a contributing factor, and summing "negative" with low capacity to lead for them to fail school and vocational route and for school, poor or mediocre results.

Although the system is more severe and less "human", it beneficiates from many advantages for that very reason. The strongest argument is that there are schools (high schools, colleges, universities) which require a more or less severe selection depending on students’ capacity and / or skills. For example, you can not go on maximizing power coverage for doctoral studies for schools (faculties) with special profiles such as those of art, medical, military or marine, etc. Obviously, such schools will only admit those who are able and not all those who want.

There are other arguments in favor of such a system, for example, the argument that a minimum (optimum) selection prevents failures during the period of study that follows, or the argument that schools that select their pupils (students) are more likely to get good results and not wasting resources. Finally, there are situations (schools, specializations) where the objective limitation of the school’s capacity (school facilities, teaching staff) does not allow coverage of all candidates.