Module 3 – Marx Trends Responses (Part 1 – Trends 1-8)
Submitted to:
Mark Robertson, Ph.D.
EDU 750 – Administrator as an Agent of Change
April 8, 2007
Submitted by:
Matt Saferite
261262
Cohort BED
Trend 4, Question 3a – What promise do you see for nanotechnology in building the economy
of your community?
Nanotechnology has some significant promise for the development of my local economy.
The influence of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (the state’s flagship university) is
significant in the region and the very clear desire of the chancellor to transform the UA to one of
the worlds leading research university’s will include leadership in nanotechnology (Chancellor
White was previously the Chancellor at Georgia Tech and was hired primarily because of his
strengths in leading a major research university). This effort on the part of the university will be
supported by businesses with headquarters in the two-county area, including Wal-Mart, JB Hunt,
Tyson Foods and others. A “technology park” (http://www.uark.edu/ua/artp/) has been
developing for the last several years and has recently been gaining national attention for its
outputs. The center’s purpose is to “serve as the bridge between university research and its
commercialization creating new opportunities for university- industry partnerships that engage
our students and faculty." The commercial outputs of this center and other comparable
organizations will draw a higher skilled and thus higher salaried workforce to the area. Their
impact will positively effect the building of a skilled labor force in a historically poor, unskilled
state.
Trend 4, Question 3b - What are the implications of nanotechnology for what we teach in our
schools and colleges?
This is the single question in all of Marx’s first eight trends that most “resonated” with
me. Several years ago I asked an extremely intelligent teacher, who was interviewing with me
for a Spanish teaching position, why we should even teach Spanish at Rogers High School. I was
not looking to offend her or get in an argument but in addition to gauging her intelligence and
thinking abilities, I wanted to see how she saw her specific content fitting together with other
content areas in a person’s life to form a positively symbiotic and complete education. That
interview got me thinking more about my own question and I have realized the specific content
in question is irrelevant. The integration of content is what matters.
Coming back to Marx’s specific question, the major implication of nanotechnology for
what American secondary schools (and maybe colleges) teach is if we will allow ourselves to
move away from the isolated structure of content we are currently locked in to. Even as a math
teacher, I could never understand why my content was so distinct from the physical science
teacher and the technology teacher. Nanotechnology, I hope, will force American educators to
integrate content particularly in the math, science, and technology areas. My fear, especially
given the current priority literacy and math (in its isolation) has from the federal level down, is
that rather than integrating math, science, technology and even Language Arts classes, most
schools will continue to move away from what little integration we currently have. Following
the research of Willard Daggett and his team at the International Center for Leadership in
Education (http://www.leadered.com/) has kept me somewhat in tune with the advances other
nations are making in technological areas, including nanotechnology and its offspring, quantum
(DNA) computing. My fear is that American education is already behind these nations and our
current focus (on Literacy) will put us so far behind, that we will wake up one day and realize we
can never again be the technological superpower we have been for the last century. Dr. Daggett
gives every school leader a starting point to address the implications of nanotechnology when he
states,
“The trends in technology … underscore how integral biology, chemistry, and physics are
to scientific advancements. Most of this information is not covered in textbooks or taught
in classrooms. For students to obtain a real-world rigorous and relevant education, they
need to explore the concepts behind the up-and-coming technologies. Let’s start by
getting students excited about learning science” (Daggett, 2005, p. 4).
Trend 1, Question 3 - Explain dependency ratios. Gather needed information and compute the
dependency ratio for your community, state/province/canton, or country.
Our class text defines dependency ratios as “the ratio of people who are of working age
(15 to 65) compared with those who are under 15 and those who are 65 or over” (Marx, 2006, p.
21). Most of the time, the ratio is expressed as a percentage and thus the actual mathematical
formula is:
where “dependents” are those people less than 15 years of age or older than 65 years.
The chart below details my city’s demographics (for the population’s age) as well as
those for the United States. The dependency ratio for both the city of Fayetteville and for the
United States is computed at the bottom of the respective column.
Chart One:
City of
Fayetteville
6.4%
6.4%
5.2%
2.6%
9.3%
10.7%
19.9%
12.9%
5.8%
5.3%
4.2%
2.8%
4.0%
3.1%
1.4%
100.0%
Nation (U.S.)
6.7%
6.7%
7.1%
4.3%
4.4%
5.5%
13.5%
14.9%
7.5%
6.7%
5.7%
4.4%
6.5%
4.4%
1.7%
100.0%
Total 0-14:
Total 65 and older:
Total (nonworking age):
18%
9%
27%
21%
13%
33%
Total 15-64:
73%
67%
Age Range:
Age 0 to 4
Age 5 to 9
Age 10 to 14
Age 15 to 17
Age 18 to 20
Age 21 to 24
Age 25 to 34
Age 35 to 44
Age 45 to 49
Age 50 to 54
Age 55 to 59
Age 60 to 64
Age 65 to 74
Age 75 to 84
Age 85 and over
Total (all ages):
Dependency Ratio (%):
Dependency Ratio (x to 1): 2.76
36%
Difference
(Fay - U.S.):
-0.3%
-0.3%
-1.9%
-1.7%
5.0%
5.1%
6.4%
-1.9%
-1.8%
-1.5%
-1.5%
-1.7%
-2.5%
-1.3%
-0.3%
50%
2.02
The chart reinforces the information Marx and others have discussed regarding the increasing
dependency ratio of the United States as a whole. The local data indicates a better
(economically) pattern of age demographics, notice in particular the three age brackets inclusive
of 18 to 34 year olds. This bracket is obviously a result of the University of Arkansas’ influence
on the local economy, both while students are in school (undergraduate and graduate) and also
after they graduate and begin their careers. Local factors such as a university aid the dependency
ratio for a region but are not enough, probably, to overcome our national trends of an aging
population and the resulting economic demands.
Trend 8, Question 6 – Prepare a one-page strategy for how education systems might be able to
teach the principles of continuous improvement to students.
1. Provide an impetus to change (Deming’s [2000] idea of accepting a new philosophy) –
a. Help stakeholders understand the need for change (Marx, Friedman, Daggett,
Collins, others)
i. Educate the educators by redefining what it means to be a manager of a
classroom (teachers need to read Tribus and Glasser)
2. Develop a common aim (Deming’s [2000] idea of creating a fidelity of purpose) a. Aim of the system for students should include the following components:
i. Sustain enthusiasm for learning
ii. Behave responsibly
iii. Feel proud of their achievements
iv. Strive to meet high standards
b. Students learning how to and being allowed to assess their own learning is the key
to continuous improvement. Keys to students assessing themselves include:
i. Elimination of subjectivity
ii. Utilizing assessment data
3. Teach students the PDSA cycle and the basic tools necessary to measure improvement
within the cycle. At a minimum, students should be understand the purpose of and be
able to use:
a. Line charts (run charts)
b. Scatter diagrams
c. Pareto charts
4. Begin a PDSA cycle of improvement system wide on the aim(s) of the system (per 2a)
References
City of Fayetteville demographic data. Retrieved April 8, 2007.
http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Fayetteville_AR-PEOPLE-DATA-0523290011.aspx
Daggett, W. (2005). Retrieved April 8, 2007.
http://www.leadered.com/pdf/whereistechnologygoing.pdf
Deming, W.E. (2000). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Marx, G. (2006). Sixteen trends … their profound impact on our future. Alexandria, VA:
Educational Research Service