Schools Should Borrow Change Processes From Software Development
Uncertainty requires iterative approaches
Agile processes aren’t just for software. They are necessary whenever a system is so complex that the ramifications of choices are unclear, when there are major uncontrollable influences on the system, or when the goalposts are likely to move.
[This article was originally published on February 2, 2024.]
Schools at every level have difficulty changing. Seemingly simple reforms go through umpteen committees and review, and emerge more dilute. There are implicit assumptions in long, drawn-out processes— mainly that the world of tomorrow will look like the world of today.
Um...no. By the time you get to deciding, and wait for years of implementation, it's not the same world anymore.
Instead, I think schools should adopt aspects of Agile, a process used for decades in software development.
Agile Development
In the 80s and 90s, the business world began migrating toward a very different paradigm for constructing and managing complex systems. Manufacturing, inventory management, and logistics adopted continuous improvement processes made of lots of little steps over a static design.
At the time, software development also followed a static design process, since called a waterfall process. Once established, the design and requirements of a product stayed relatively unchanged. Various forms of Agile slowly supplanted waterfall processes. Goals and design are adaptive in Agile.
These changes weren’t fads. They were responses to a complex world with plenty of uncertainty.
A logistics pipeline could be disrupted through no fault of the company; we’ve seen that with the COVID-19 pandemic. Smaller versions of such changes in a global economy meant that plans had to be re-jiggered frequently to stay optimal.
Similarly, a multi-year software development process could go off the rails if the objectives were wrong. Perhaps what users wanted wasn’t as well understood as presumed. Or the market or competition for the software might change by the time the software is ready for launch.
Agile software development is now the standard, and the success of such projects far exceeds the all-up-front waterfall method. The ability to morph quickly and to have a solution that can be used right away is the logical solution to change and uncertainty that cannot be controlled.
Adoption of Agile in the software community took decades. It runs afoul of traditional business thinking that calls for extensive planning. That mental model insists on all the answers up front. Agile is implicitly admitting that everyone has a faulty crystal ball. Nobody can know all the conditions the solution will have to face, and the assumptions may not be valid. Users often change their mind when they use software versus imagine using it. It has taken the past couple of decades to build the evidence showing nervous onlookers that it is a superior method compared to a sequential design-build-test process.
Agile processes aren’t just for software. They are necessary whenever a system is so complex that the ramifications of choices are unclear, when there are major uncontrollable influences on the system, or when the goalposts are likely to move.
Agile processes divide the development into small time chunks (usually weeks) called Sprints. All stakeholders debate Sprint goals. Assigned tasks are updated frequently (often daily). At the end, the development team shows a working implementation. The goals for the next Sprint are based on that progress, customer and other stakeholder reactions, and the longer-term vision.
Education’s Waterfall Problem
Education uses waterfall processes. Changes to curriculum, pedagogy, structure, incentives or measures change on decades-long time scales. Often there are years spent thinking about how to change. “After all”, the status quo proponents might say, “it can take a long time to retrain teachers or understand how well the change has worked.”
The problem is the time delay. If change is delayed, the solutions may no longer fit. In 2022, I was telling educators Computer Science curricula shouldn’t be 90% coding since it’s a much bigger field than that and AI was going to do most of the coding when they got to the workforce anyway. Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) standards were thrown back at me. Now that AI is doing most of the coding, that’s an easier conversation. As for what's going to happen a decade from now, I have no better clue than most. Expertise doesn't improve the forecast when there's too much that can change the ballgame.
Assuming the world stays the same even a year from now is dicey. Schools have to account for what the world will be like in decades. Waterfall thinking ossifies the education system, while the world keeps changing .
The Agile Aspects To Borrow
There are many differences between educating people and building software, but there are at least three key pieces of Agile that education should adopt:
The assumption of frequent and incremental change such that each change increment is immediately usable. The attitude is that change is expected instead of constancy.
The empowerment of all stakeholders in the process, especially the customers (students, employers, etc.), and trust in their wisdom. This doesn't mean endless input (see principle #1), but rather tight iteration in building, evaluating, and changing.
The expectation of a solution-oriented team that will measure progress frequently, if not continuously, and jettison what is not working. This doesn't mean waiting years to see student outcome each time you change something. Quicker measures for frequent course correction, including subjective ones, are preferred to waiting.
Any major change requires experimentation and the encouragement of front-line innovation. However, those are not sufficient conditions. Agile education ensures change is a core principle. Only then will education come closer to matching the needs of the future world.
The greatest goal of reform must be to create a system with the incentives and processes to keep evolving.
©2024 Dasey Consulting LLC
On the macro level, school systems were built ages ago. Everyone knows that and knows it needs to change, but no one knows who (individually and collectively) can change that. Everyone is waiting for something or someone.
In the micro level, there’s a tension between trying new things and feeling vulnerable in learning alongside students. That’s a systems problem as much as a culture problem. Both are able to be addressed, and your point about Agile is a big part of that. Love the read!
Great points! I would rather live in a system where we state and assume and act on "constant change - on our part - is part of the game." We need proactive, incremental change, tweaks, shifts, not in response to a daily demand or emergency, but as A/B testing, mini-control groups, etc. The mantra I hear far too often is that "change takes time." Embracing that philosophy seems to be - lately, like in the last few years - a way to placate one about one's work and to make it "okay" that I don't see any difference in the system because of my efforts. Rant over! Thank you for sharing!