«بازی جدید» یا «زمین جدید بازی»؛ تحلیل انتقادی گفتمان بهره ‏وری در نظام تربیتی ایران (نقد سند تحول بنیادین)

In educational systems, productivity is subject to innovation and creativity, and it is crucial to achieve this innovation by changing the attitude of those involved in the education system toward thinking. In the past decades, three discourses of innovation have been pursued in Iran, including the discourse of change in the product, the process and the structure, and with the compilation of the Fundamental Reform Document of Education (FRDE), extensive efforts have been made to implement innovative reforms with the goal of enhancing productivity. Meanwhile, no improvement has truly been made in the Iranian educational system, because the accomplishment of creative innovations has been impeded by the attitude toward thinking and the dominance of linear thinking in the educational policies set in our country. These efforts have thus mostly been focused on changing the game yet still playing on the same field, while revolutionary and creative innovation does not simply mean changing the game and playing on the same field; rather, it means to create a new playground, which can be achieved by revising the discourses of the upstream document's compilation.
Introduction
Productivity is a criterion for measuring the performance of a system. Increasing productivity allows us to improve the quality of our organization's performance. There are many definitions for productivity in education, such as focusing on the learner and the improvement of learning, linking the students’ academic progress to the available resources, and linking output to input. The common point of all these definitions is the centrality of the students and the enhancement of their abilities as well as the optimal use of available resources and reducing the costs of activities related to the promotion of productivity.
From an organizational point of view, innovation means taking advantage of a new idea, and innovation and productivity are two connected categories, such that a productive organization must be an innovative and creative one, as well. Innovation means novelty and doing something different. By summarizing the various definitions existing for innovation, three discourses emerge in relation to innovation, including the discourse of innovation in product, the discourse of innovation in process, and the discourse of innovation in organization (Boer & During, 2001). In the current method, innovation generally means changing the game yet playing on the same field, as demonstrated by the reform experiences in Iran's education system, which have been pursued under the name of ‘innovation’, such as the new and old systems of schooling, the semester-credit and year-credit systems, the 6-3-3 system, etc. These reforms or innovations or ‘new games’ have not led to improved productivity in the educational system, as they have been performed or played on the same field. As a result, it seems essential to first change our definition of innovation; that is, instead of changing the game but playing on the same field, we should change the whole field or playground. Instances include decentralization, eliminating the mere book-centered approach, and revising the discourses of upstream documents compilation. Therefore, it is only by creating a new playground that innovation can lead to productivity in the educational system.
Methodology
This article has been drafted using the concept analysis, re-conceptualization and critical analysis of the Fundamental Reform Document of Education (FRDE) and offers implications for the education system based on inferences.
Results
In order to change the playground as part of a novel innovation, our attitude toward thinking must be altered as the fundamental element of innovation. For example, if some people believe in centralism, it is because their perspective on thinking is tree-structured, hegemonic and hierarchical, and this kind of thinking does not lead to an innovation that induces productivity. Based on the theoretical foundations of the FRDE, the most important mission of the educational system is to promote thinking about the accepted and absolute truth and the necessity of accepting the Divinity of God. This truth has also depicted a world for mankind that is ideal (a good life). In other words, all intellectual and truth-seeking efforts in the process of education should be aimed at acquiring knowledge that is only in accordance with the standard system derived from the truth and good life. With the emergence of new philosophical approaches, these hegemonic relationships between sciences are no longer acceptable. In these new approaches, rhizomatic thinking offers an alternative to the tree-structured, hegemonic, and hierarchical thinking. It is this type of thinking that can lead to an innovation that induces productivity.
The logic of issuing a mission statement and setting macro goals, macro strategies, etc., in the FRDE points to the fact that not only does thinking have a specific and determined scope but that knowledge also must be acquired with specific goals and outputs, because any deviations from thinking and knowledge acquisition that is contrary to the FRDE or the standard system disrupts the evaluation of the results of thinking and knowledge acquisition.
Discussion and conclusion
Today, the goals stated in the FRDE document and the National Curriculum Document form the basis of all the elements of Iran's educational system, and any violation of it deserves negative evaluations and warnings to return to the path of the upstream documents. Although the upstream documents have themselves been compiled to create innovation in the educational system, the question is raised as to why these documents have not brought about any innovative transformation in our educational system in the real sense. It can be argued that innovation under the three mentioned discourses mostly means creating change and transformation while still playing on the same field. Meanwhile, transformation occurring on the same field simply means that something is changed from its current state to another state. In other words, the playground remains the same before and after the change and transformation, but takes on a different face with some adjustments and arrangements or modifications. This scenario resembles putting new clothes on the same old body. The upstream documents compilation can therefore provide an example of this innovation in the educational system, which, even if proving completely successful in terms of implementation within the body of the educational system, never leaves the main ground or territory of the educational system and continues to play on the same field (territorialization). Nonetheless, creative innovation is based on another view of thinking, which is to break the existing and established territories –in other words, deterritorialization or playing on a new ground rather than playing a new game on the same old ground. Rhizomatic thinking is the only option that provides the possibility of entering a new territory and creating new ideas for creative innovation.
Therefore, it seems that if we are looking for an innovation that induces productivity, the territory on which we exist must be removed and a new territory must be created in order to develop fundamental and revolutionary changes –in other words, instead of playing on the same field, the playground must be changed. The grounds that must be changed by rhizomatic thinking so that productivity-inducing innovation can occur include the discourse of the upstream documents (due to revivalism and futurism), the centralized structure of the power system's dominance over education and training, and consequently the education system's lack of involvement in issues that challenge power or which the power opposes, the domination of ideology due to its mandatory nature and dogmatism, the dominance of books instead of paying attention to contemporary scientific experiences and events, teachers’ dominance over the students or modeling, the dominance of the standard evaluation system as a result of neglecting the students’ different talents and interests and assessing everyone based on the same criterions, the dominance of standard methods and disregarding teachers' creative methods, and the dominance of pure consequentialism and disregard for the present.