The introduction of systems theory and the homeostatic feedback loop is really helpful in thinking about leadership and structural problems within a society. By imagining systems, such as Professor Bezio’s example of the educational system, as “living” things that can self-regulate, the long-term impacts of decision-making by leaders become more clear. For her example, Prof. Bezio explains that the education system needs some input to maintain the level of health that will allow it to operate. This input comes in the form of money and teachers. However, anything beyond what is needed to keep the education system running, like technology updates and diversity laws, and standardized testing, is not “necessary.” The education system will continue to work just off of inputs, even if it is not working right or effectively. Therefore, updates to systems carry an incredible amount of weight, because not only are they not “necessary,” but they can also be destabilizing and detrimental.
The reading uses the example of the Moro community to demonstrate how these updates, while seemingly positive in the short term, can often have long-lasting negative effects that were not intended. This example reminded me so much of MacAskill’s Doing Good Better, and the PlayPump. I think that his message of effective altruism applies beyond making charitable donations to policy work, such as reforming the education system. We shouldn’t just make decisions because they seem good, we should make decisions that are the most good for both the present and the future.
I like that you brought up the discussion about how anything beyond the necessary inputs in a system is just extra, no matter how much we may think it is actually necessary as well. In the case of education, there are so many policies over the years that fixed one problem that felt essential at that time like the NCLB Act and the introduction of standardized tests. We felt like the education system itself was getting away from us and in a panic added all of these factors that eventually would cause a ripple effect into every corner of every school.
I think this idea of thinking about systems existing and surviving, even if they are not the most efficient, is an important one. This idea allows us to recognize the faults in our systems, and look for ways to improve them and make them more efficient.
I think it is interesting to think of schools as functioning without the “extra” because, while it seems weird, it is not wrong. However, there is a very big distinction between surviving and thriving. I also guess this is a little off-topic, but the extras also hurt. For example, in Idaho, (where I am from) they just passed a bill that will forbid schools to discuss historical events like the Civil War, WWII, and Women’s Suffrage and if they do, the state will pull funding. So the system is functioning off of this input but now has this “extra” weighing on them, how will the system survive?