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...

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…