"Systemicity"

     One of the goals of higher learning is to create new knowledge.  In fact, such a concept is the keystone of 21st Century education.  We have to prepare our children to solve problems that haven't even been thought of yet with tools that haven't been created yet.  Think of it as taking the axiom "Necessity is the mother of invention" to the "nth" degree.

     In that respect, here is a new word to describe how things function in a system.  A branch of study known as Systemics has been developing in response to the practices of Reductionism - that is, understanding the whole by learning about each of its parts.  One of the big problems with reductionism is that it is the main thought behind how our curriculum in every school across our nation is set up today - 45 minutes in Chemistry - 45 minutes in Spanish II - 45 minutes in Algebra II - 45 minutes in Health - and then it's time for lunch (even though it's only 10:30 in the morning, but that's another topic for discussion).   It's no wonder our children can't "understand" anything.  Thank goodness there's been a movement toward an integrated curriculum, but such an undertaking require a tremendous shift (dare I say "change" in this day and age) from the model that has prepared our children to work in factories to a model that they will need in order to function in the world they will enter when they graduate.

     You see it in the kids today.  My teenagers have been able to work on homework on a computer with the television on, listening to an ipod with their cellphone nearby in case anyone sends them a text message.  They can look up answers to questions on the Internet, and will have chat windows open with their friends on AOL.  Some may say these children cannot focus on their work, but I've also seen my children curl up with a book in a chair with a cup of tea and read.  Yes, they can do it - but only if it interests them.  If you ask them how school was today, they'll say, "It's boring."  And to them, it is.  And a teacher saying, "Well, I can't make Chemistry any more exciting for you" does nothing to foster interest in the sciences...especially when we need advancement in science, technology, and mathematics.

     Speaking of science, recall the panel of experts that were convened in the early 20th Century to analyze and develop the best practice for teaching Chemistry, Physics and Biology.  The panel concluded their studies by saying there is as much Chemistry and Biology in Physics as there is Biology and Physics in Chemistry as there is Physics and Chemistry in Biology.  Therefore, the panel recommended that the progression of sciences be taught in this order: Biology, then Chemistry, then Physics.  Why?  Because it's in ALPHABETICAL ORDER!  Knowing what we know today about Brain Research, the first should be physics, since it is the most concrete of the three.  But you need higher math to understand force vectors and differential equations.  So, schools have instituted an "Introduction to Physical Science" course as a precursor to - of course - Biology.  In today's marketplace, we're looking at Biochemists (health researchers) and Biophysicists (physical therapists and other specialists in this emergent field), and many of them aren't from this country.  Why aren't we, as a whole, preparing our children for leadership in these fields?

     The response from the academic community is usually that it would take an awful lot of work to change the paradigm, especially with difficulties that might be encountered from the teachers' union, local school boards, and parents.  While such a dramatic shift could be very difficult in a public school system, adopting strategies such as this in our schools can differentiate our curriculum, thereby retaining more students, and sending our test scores even higher than they are now.

     Think of it this way...if a parent looks at your Catholic school and the local public school, if you're doing the same thing, and time after time, children can easily assimilate into the public school system after they leave your school, there will be no perceived difference by the parent, and price becomes the main issue.

     This is where I usually hear, "But we have religion in our schools!  We can talk about our Faith!"  May I be so bold to say that such a paradigm will be important in the next few years.  The members of the Millennial Generation (born 1984 through 2004) are just starting to marry and have children.  Millennials, on the whole, are more concerned with spiritual matters than Generation X (born 1964 through 1984) parents, which is the group of parents we are marketing to today.  Gen X cares about "ME" - not the system, but the reductionist parts - and in particular, the part that is specifically "them."  Right now, these folks are 24 to 44 years old (give or take a few years, depending upon which researcher you are speaking with), but these are the people that are pushing for equal rights for their cohabitating significant other and same sex unions.  These individuals have known abortion on demand for their entire lives (they were 7 at the time of Roe v. Wade).  These are the people we are asking to send their children to our schools.

     And this is why we just cannot rely on marketing to make our schools fill with students.  It's a reductionist strategy - let's get some good marketing, and people will come to the school.  It won't work.  First, you have to offer a different product that appeals to your target audience.  What is that?  21st Century learning.  Second, you have to realize that all aspects of advancement work together.  It's an analogy that I used before, but it's like the old Roman battle ships.  One side has the oars of curriculum, the other has the oars of advancement.  The principal is the person with their hand on the rudder to steer the ship, and determine which side needs to add a little more or reduce power in order to maneuver through the difficult waters that lie ahead.

     For a practical example of the "Systemicity" of Advancement, think of it this way:

     Looks like a mess, doesn't it?  Which is why people prefer the reductionist way of looking at things.  Let's start with Marketing, since it's at the upper right corner.  Marketing leads to enrollment, and enrollment leads to retention (remember, the best way to build your enrollment is to keep the students you already have - but enrollment strategies are different than retention strategies.  Those enrolled in your school will provide the best marketing strategy you can have - positive word of mouth.  Remember that negative word of mouth is just as effective at making families leave your school.

     Retention leads to development, since those that graduate from your school are the most likely to remain engaged with the school and become a supporter.  Those students that leave after second grade or after 5th grade will remember your school as a place they went, not as the place they graduated from.  Development then splits into two paths - one that leads back to marketing, since you have to market to your "investors" to let them know what's happening with the school to maintain their engagement so that they'll be encouraged to contribute, which leads to asset management.  Good management of your revenues will allow your school to do more marketing, and it will aid in retaining students through additional financial aid offered to them.

     Truthfully, this is the way it works:

     ...but it's a whole lot easier to understand when there's a starting point.  And marketing is the origin.

Back to Marketing Matters Index