Systems Thinking and Transforming Higher Education

Systems Thinking Case Study: Karen Avery
Q1. From a systems perspective, what factors do you believe contributed to the marginal results obtained by the various subgroups within the task forces?
According to Lunenberg (2010), schools are open systems although the degree to which they interact with the external environment may vary considerably, based upon the open-mindedness of administrators. The initial solutions offered by the task force reflected a closed mentality, in the manner in which they suggested options such as motivating teachers, total quality management, a return to basics, or other solutions which merely reconstituted previously-used and ineffectual frameworks (Razick & Swanson 2010). No input was solicited from the larger community in the other task force models until Avery intervened.
Q2. Identify and discuss instances of an aggregate mentality at work in this case.
An aggregate or community mentality suggests that the sum of an organization is more powerful than the components of its parts (Razick & Swanson 2010). The initial task force findings, however, proposed monitoring from within and focused on specific, individual components of school improvement rather than holistic, community-wide improvement of the school (Razick & Swanson 2010).
Q3. Would Karen today describer her school or school system as relatively open or relatively closed? Why? Classify the new model as open or closed. Why?
Today, after instituting her reforms, Karen Avery would likely describe her model as an open one. Avery’s model is centered upon making a good faith effort to have teachers act as guides, not disciplinarians, which disrupts the silo mentality of standardized education (Razick & Swanson 2010). Avery is intent upon offering parents more opportunities to have input into their children’s schooling. As noted by Lunenberg (2010), the inputs into any school system can roughly be classified as either “human resources, financial resources, physical resources,” or “information resources” and by bringing in parents and outside guides Avery’s reforms are clearly honoring this concept (p.2). By asking parents to choose which is most appropriate for their children in dialogue with school administrators, a new range of opinions and ideas can be infused into the system, thus hopefully improving the system’s outputs (Razick & Swanson 2010).
Q4. Discuss the feedback mechanisms that exist in the new school model.
What is particularly heartening about the new system is the consistency and variety of the feedback mechanisms which exist within it. First and foremost, teachers provide feedback to students as guides and mentors (Razick & Swanson 2010). But students similarly provide feedback about the extent to which the program is working to achieve mutually agreed-upon goals. Students working in groups also provide peer feedback. Teachers working in clusters of three to six guides provide feedback to fellow teachers and parents likewise provide input about the program (Razick & Swanson 2010). Feedback, in short, is constant. “Feedback is crucial to the success of the school operation. Negative feedback, for example, can be used to correct deficiencies in the transformation process or the inputs or both, which in turn will have an effect on the school's future outputs” (Lunenberg, 2010, p.3).
Q5. Does the new school model appear to invite chaos or amplify variety? Discuss why.
The new framework, it must be admitted, does have the potential for a great deal of potential chaos because so much input is being infused into the system at all times, including the individual mentor teachers, the teachers observing different clusters, as well as the input provided by the students and teachers (Razick & Swanson 2010). It does, however, also amplify a variety of opinions by permitting multiple channels of dialogue, which is a positive step forward for the school.
Q6. In what ways does the new school model apply the following systems concepts?
· Input-throughput-output
· Synergy
· Leading part and emergence
· Dynamic homeostasis
· Equifinality
· Negentropy
The new model clearly shows an influence of systems theory by radically opening upon the range of inputs into the educational process (shifting the dynamic between students and teachers and including parents) in the hopes of better achieving the output goals of learning. There is a greater emphasis on the throughput or process of change, versus solely focusing on output. The hope is to generate synergies between different organizational actors and encourage a new, dynamic model of leadership and emergence of more symmetrical model between all organizational stakeholders. A new state of homeostasis is achieved where there is more sympathy and sharing between students, parents, and teachers. The concept of equifinality suggests that system goals can be reached through a variety of means. Rather than view teachers as disciplinarians, the new system views them as mentors (Razick & Swanson 2010). There is an effort to maintain negentropy or orderliness through supervision of educational clusters by other teachers and mentors and to solicit input from parents, versus more traditional, punitive methods of controlling behavior (Razick & Swanson 2010).
Q7. Karen's group has proposed an extensive revision of the traditional approach to the operation of schools. If her group is to function as a lead part of the school system in the effort to deal with its problems, what steps might it take to move the district toward their vision?
It is still essential to generate buy-in for Avery’s methodology. First, school administrators must be persuaded of the efficacy of her methods with evidence-based research in favor of systems theory. “The environment in the open systems model takes on added significance today in a climate of policy accountability. The social, political, and economic contexts in which school administrators work are marked by pressures at the local, state, and federal levels” (Lunenberg, 2010, p.3). Secondly, parents likewise must be brought on board and convinced that the time and effort needed for the plan required of them is worth their efforts (Razick & Swanson 2010).
Q8. What might help her group function as a lead part in the effort? What might impede her group's effectiveness? How might impedances be dealt with?
Avery’s group can function more effectively by preemptively drawing upon the support of teachers and parents to fuel the change process (Razick & Swanson 2010). Unfortunately, the coalition may be impeded by the fact that teachers and parents often have a different worldview, given teachers’ professional versus individualized focus on the students (Razick & Swanson 2010). Focusing on common interests and the benefits of the proposal for both groups is critical to generate buy-in.


Reference
Lunenburg, F. (2010). Schools as open systems. Schooling, 1(1), 1-5. Retrieved from:
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lununburg,%20Fred %20C.%20Schools%20as%20Open%20Systems%20Schooling%20V1%20N1%202010. pdf
Razik, T. & Swanson, A. (2010). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership and
Management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.