1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723), press 2
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600, press 2
November 1992 | Volume 50 | Number 3
Improving School Quality
Nearly a century of change has left schools playing catch-up, and it will take a whole-system approach to meet society's evolving needs.
Our piecemeal change efforts of the last decade have taught us a valuable lesson about Total Quality Management: we must seek improvement through systemic change. Current approaches to solving problems in education are the same ones used by generations of educators and are stoutly defended as having worked in the past. But we can now see clearly that the environment within which education is embedded has been changing at an increasing rate since about 1900. It wasn't until 1950 that the magnitude of change became evident and stimulated a series of reforms, which have had little apparent impact (Banathy 1991).
Currently, the call for systemic change in education is becoming increasingly strident. Unfortunately, the word system has been popularized without a fundamental understanding of its implications, to the point where everything is a system but nothing really is treated as one. Many people say they are using a systems approach, but almost no one really is. Furthermore, popular interpretations of systems tend to use inappropriate mechanical models and metaphors. Decision makers need to fully understand why our current approaches won't work and what is different about the systems approach.
The seeds of public education's current failures are found in its success in the past. From its inception, public education has been called on to transmit core knowledge and cultural values, provide custodial care, and prepare students for life after school, the most important aspect of which is critical and creative thinking for problem solving and decision making. Public education has been very successful in its first function, generally successful in the second, and much less successful in the last. As a consequence, public education has emerged as one of the prime sources of stability, or pattern maintenance, in our society. Public education's overwhelming success as a pattern maintenance institution is at the heart of its failure to match changing societal expectations.
Banathy (1991) suggests five reasons why our efforts to make a transition have met with so little success:
All five are examples of paradigm paralysis, or mumpsimus, which Webster defines as “persistence in a mistaken belief,” the attempt to interpret current experience using old models and metaphors that are no longer appropriate or useful. An examination of the key evolutionary makers in Figure 1 illustrate that our schools remain firmly rooted at Stage 3, when the rest of the world has moved into Stage 4.
If the old paradigms won't work, something fundamentally better suited to the task is needed, a paradigm that illuminates the whole, not just the parts; one that is synthetic, rather than analytic; one that integrates, rather than differentiates. This new paradigm is systems thinking.
hunter gathering groups
potential of a global society
deterministic scientific paradigm
systemic change paradigm
Adapted from Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future, Bela H. Benathy, 1991, Educational Technology Publications, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Used with permission of the publisher.
Even a small child can use a hammer and saw, but it takes a master carpenter who fully understands the tools and their limitations to build a house. We can begin to build a few structures of our own by establishing some definitions for terms needed to discuss systems thinking meaningfully.
A system is a set of elements that function as a whole to achieve a common purpose. A subsystem is a component of a larger system; for example, the circulatory system is a subsystem of a human system. Occasionally, the larger system is referred to as a supra-system when it is talked about in relation to its subsystems.
An element is a necessary but not self-sufficient component of a system. That is, the system cannot achieve its purpose without the element, and the element by itself cannot replicate the system's functions.
Systems are characterized by synergy—the whole (system) is greater than the sum of its parts (elements), because the relationship among the elements adds value to the system.
The relationship among the elements is maintained by an exchange of energy; for example, money in a banking system, heat in a thermodynamic system, or information in a learning system. The relationship among elements is maintained by a difference in energy potential among elements, which allows for an interchange. A healthy system is constantly searching for a dynamic balance through self-regulating mechanisms. For example, the human system maintains body temperature in a dynamic balance around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit by increasing or decreasing the circulation of blood near the system boundary (skin) through shivering, panting, or perspiring.
The total quantity of energy in a system is fixed; however, energy is constantly redistributed among subsystems. Individually, all systems and subsystems are subject to entropy, the process by which energy becomes distributed evenly throughout the system. When there is no longer a difference in energy levels among subsystems or elements, the system breaks apart or dies.
To continue to exist, a system must be able to import energy across its boundary or have a capacity to create new sources of energy. A system that is able to import and export energy is called an open system. One that cannot import energy is called a closed system. A closed system that cannot generate a sufficient amount of energy internally to replace what is lost to entropy will die. A recent dramatic example of this is the demise of the U.S.S.R., a closed political system. The Soviet Union simply required more energy to maintain itself than could be generated internally or imported.
With these definitions and examples in mind, we can see why general solutions to educational problems do not work. Each educational system is composed of a unique set of elements arranged in a unique constellation of relationships. Furthermore, the relationships among elements, subsystems, and supra-systems are continually changing in search of equilibrium while avoiding entropy.
Social systems such as a school are generally regarded as open systems. Katz and Kahn (1966) have defined the attributes of an open system.
In addition to the degree of openness, systems are also characterized by three important concepts: hierarchy, homeostasis, and purposiveness.
Hierarchy. A system's hierarchy refers to the number of levels within the system. Each successively higher level of the hierarchy encompasses all of the processes at each lower level and is increasingly complex as the number of elements and the relationship among elements increases. As the number of elements, or subsystems, increases linearly, the number of relationships increases exponentially. What is of particular significance from the systems perspective is that the energy required to maintain the relationships increases at an even faster rate.
Hierarchies may be natural, for example, birth order in a family, or arbitrary, as is the case in a designed system, such as a school or business. Arbitrary hierarchies require more energy to maintain than do natural hierarchies, and they frequently divert energy from goal attainment. For example, maintaining the age-grade hierarchy is schools can be shown to be counterproductive in many cases.
Furthermore, Kenneth Boulding has suggested a useful rule-of-thumb related to hierarchies. For example, if a teacher is having problems in classroom management (classroom level), we tend to discuss the difficulties in terms of the teacher's behaviors (individual level), but the solution may be more readily found at the school level in the nature of the supportive structures, unrealistic expectations of teachers, or even the notion of a classroom itself. Russell Ackoff suggests the most elegant way to handle a problem is to dissolve it. The only way an individual teacher can have problems of classroom management is if instruction has been arbitrarily organized into teacher-managed self-contained classrooms.
Homeostasis. A second important characteristic is homeostasis, which refers to self-regulation through feedback mechanisms. Machines are relatively simple systems with few variables, which operate in a stable relationship. Mechanical systems require little feedback from the environment to function.
At the other extreme, organic systems are very complex with many variables, which require a great deal of feedback. The larger and more complex the system, the more energy, in the form of feedback, is required to maintain a dynamic balance among elements.
Purposiveness. A final characteristic of a system is it purposiveness. Some systems have a single, clear goal, which Banathy (1991, p. 35) classifies as a “unitary” system. Other systems have many, sometimes even conflicting, goals; these are “pluralistic” systems.
We have attempted to treat education as a unitary system, but in reality it is highly pluralistic with many conflicting goals. The compromises that we have reached by applying old paradigms in a new context are proving to be unsatisfactory, but paradigm paralysis prevents us from seeing what is really needed. By placing systems along a descriptive continuum for each characteristic, we can better differentiate between system types.
As a system, a school is moderately open. The primary types of energy are financial and intellectual. The school is not a natural system; it operates under a series of sometimes conflicting legal mandates rather than a social mandate that represents a consensus of the participants. Consequently, substantial amounts of systems energy are consumed in maintaining relationships rather than achieving goals.
Similarly, schools tend to be more mechanistic than organic, as evidenced by rigid structures that tend to treat all elements similarly: class periods of fixed length, a single textbook for all students in a class, classes of the same size for different subjects, and so on.
Schools, as proposed earlier, have a limited set of goals: the same goals for each student. While they are unitary in character with respect to goals, schools generally have some latitude with respect to the means to achieve those goals.
Finally, schools have a restricted hierarchy with relatively few levels of complexity. The more constraints under which a school must work, such as legislative mandates or environmental pressures in the form of racial tensions, drug abuse, or poverty, the more closed, mechanistic, unitary, and restricted they become.
The improvement of quality involves the design of an educational system that not only optimizes the relationship among the elements but also between the educational system and its environment. In general, this means designing a system that is more open, organic, pluralistic, and complex. Banathy (1991, p. 80) has described such a system.
The inevitable conclusion from the evidence at hand is that the old system is no longer adequate to the task. If we accept this assertion, we must also conclude that no amount of fine-tuning of the old system will produce significant improvement. What kind of a system is needed to produce the breakthrough achievement we are looking for?
An analysis of the literature and practice in both educational and management suggests we are moving from deterministic systems toward purpose-seeking systems. In social terms, we are moving from “dictatorial” to “participative” organizational styles.
In order to make this kind of transition, it is necessary only to shift perspective from a one-to-many toward a many-to-one orientation. For example, in education this means a shift from viewing education as a system in which one teacher provides information to many students toward a system in which there are many information resources accessible by one student, only one of which is the teacher. This shift can accurately be characterized as moving from an emphasis on instruction to an emphasis on learning.
From the perspective of systemic change, the implications of this idea are huge. Clearly, there is no place in the new system design for the old “2-4-6 model”: all information between two textbook covers, taught within four walls, in six periods. Equally clearly, the new designs will include an increasing number of the following elements:
These are not completely new elements; however, the effort to incorporate all of these elements in a designed system has not been made. Total Quality Management in education means a total systems approach and, as it appears increasingly apparent, a totally new system.
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Ackoff, R. L. (1986). Management in Small Doses. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning, and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
Betts, F.M., and H.J. Walberg. (Unpublished manuscript). “Improving Student Achievement through Balanced Instructional Design.”
Boulding, K. E. (1956). The Image. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press.
Educational Leadership. (March 1991). Theme Issue on “The Reflective Educator.” Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Developmnent.
Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. (1969). “Common Characteristics of Open Systems.” In Systems Thinking, edited by F. E. Emery. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wittrock, M.C. (1974). “Learning as a Generative Process.” Educational Psychologist 11: 87–95.
Frank Betts is Director of the Curriculum/Technology Resource Center at ASCD.
Copyright © 1992 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our twice-monthly e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.