A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Extending the Analysis Along Lines Suggested by Other Research

A topic deserving of extended analysis is the systemic character of successful change endeavors. If we are to apply systems thinking to curriculum reform, it is essential to understand what it is, its applicability to educational situations and how this thinking can inform educational change endeavors. Its power is great and it fits the situation. There are various ways to characterize systems thinking but because of the potential power of his models, attention is directed here to the characterization of Senge (1990). The Senge conceptions were first used in this project in 1991 when designing the research. Explanations of its relevance to understanding educational reform is provided in a literature review produced as part of the project (Anderson, et al., 1994). The reader is referred there for elaboration of the ideas of systems thinking, systemic structures, systems complexity, and a learning organization. Because the ideas are developed in this literature review--and of course, in Senge's book itself--they are not elaborated here.

The appropriate application of systems thinking to educational reform is not in finding the solutions that will solve the problem in a given setting. The situations are too complex and achieving success is an art. Systems thinking is an aid to this art. It can help in understanding the dynamic complexity of a given situation, pinpoint key interrelationships, and help anticipate the unintended consequences of proposed actions.

Systems archetypes. A specific tool used in systems thinking is the application of what Senge (1990) calls systems archetypes to a given setting to identify key interrelationships. These archetypes are an aid to seeing interrelationships within the whole. Their purpose is to help identify structures, locate the feedback loops and find the leverage, something that is hard to do in the midst of the crosscurrents and pressures of real-life situations. We use them here to understand more completely the results of our cross-site analysis.

Of the ten archetypes Senge describes, three appear to have particular relevance to the situation portrayed in our cross-site analysis: "limits to growth," "shifting the burden," and "growth and underinvestment." A summary development of the application of these archetypes to this cross-site analysis is presented to show their relevance and potential.

Limits to growth. In this archetype there is a period of accelerating change which then meets resistance. In an educational reform context this resistance may come from professionals who are forced to make changes they do not want to make or from parents who do not want the new form of education for their children.

The principle to apply for overcoming the dynamics described in this archetype is removal of the source of limitations. In the case of the educational reforms portrayed in our cross-site analysis, such actions could include:

1. Gaining the support and participation of resistors among the professionals through more and/or better inservice education and, more importantly, creating a work context that is more encouraging of collaborative working relationships that have the potential of fostering the desired changes in values, beliefs and roles.

2. Provide better education for parents and opportunities for participation that will develop both understanding and ownership.

3. Take practical steps to reduce the time demands on professionals, such as through purchasing curriculum materials rather than having teachers develop them as part of the reform process.

Shifting the burden. In this archetype, fundamental, long-term actions for reform are neglected in favor of those with more immediate, and probably ephemeral, results. In an educational reform context, this approach may result in focusing on new activities for teachers that have to do with new curriculum materials, new forms of assessment, and new teaching techniques without getting to the basic issue of helping students develop a new role for themselves.

The principle for this situation is to focus on the fundamental solution, i.e., re-negotiating the role of the students. Inservice education, collaborative teacher projects and other actions need to focus on this fundamental issue.

Growth and underinvestment. In this archetype, growth approaches a limit due to under-investment in additional "capacity." Underinvestment appears to pertain to our cases. Inservice education often was terminated too soon. Inadequate steps were taken to create a climate of collaboration in some cases. Not enough teacher time was invested in helping students re-negotiate a new student role.

The principle for this situation is to hold the vision and invest what it takes to make it work, such as more funding for inservice education, changes in course scheduling to provide more time for team planning, and more teacher investment of instructional time in helping students to acquire a new role.

The future. Systems thinking is an important key to understanding and effecting educational reforms. All dimensions--including technical, political, and cultural--must be addressed in a systemic manner with recognition of their interactions. Explanatory models--such as the Senge archetypes--offer assistance in understanding these dynamic relationships and guiding administrative and policy decisions about reform.
-###-

[The Essentials of Attaining Reforms]

[Assessment of the Outcomes of the Reforms]