1. Define, identify, discuss the historical development, and demonstrate a broad comprehension of the nature of systems-oriented theoretical approaches to social issues. (5 pages)
The study of human systems began in the twentieth century in the introduction of General Systems Theory. This is a cross-discipline field assuming that social science can pin down the living and non-living and treat them as systems. A Person In Environment (regarded as PIE) yields the suggestion of existing in a system that may be organized and arranged through social means. By system, similarities are determined with relations to patterns, unities and connecting to a whole. Systems can be a group of people, or units such as “families, organizations, communities, societies, and cultures” (Anderson, Carter, Lowe and Gruyter, 1999, p. 4). It is important to see the origin of social systems theory as beginning on Systems theory that came out influenced by various fields post-World War II. To approach social science by systems has been a debate of scholars. Systems itself is a vague term that may be employed and applied in several manners but what remains true is how they consistent of components or parts that function to form a whole in their own interdependent manner.
Systems to put more simply and bluntly describe relationships and the workings of interactions. The smallest unit of society is not the individual that will consist of the society as acollective but the most basic interaction or relationship the individual is able to bridge that will then form sequences, “patterns of exchange that occurs between individuals”. According to Jacob and Tennenbaum, the smallest unit of society then is “the system of members in mutual and interdependent relationships with one another, not individual behavior in isolation of context” (p. 4). Thus, a social system. It then proceeds to say that society or the world’s root is not the person but the relationship and interaction this person forms with another. The world, or society to say, cannot exist without communication. This remains to be a general or broad take of what a system is supposed to be. Systems may still be divided into levels or ranked to consist of suprasystems and subsystems according to Joan Jurish and Karen Myers-Bowman (1998). Jurish and Myers-Bowman explain this configuration through the systems that consist a human body such as the “circulatory, digestive, neurological”, which may be regarded as subsystems consisting a whole suprasystem which is the human body. Systems Theory has various assumptions: First, it believes in holism which focuses on the sum whole than its parts (and which would be expounded further in Parsons’ section). In holism, each interaction is an event that builds up to a pattern and forming a whole. Secondly, it assumes that Living Systems are open in a way that it would actively initiate and bring forth exchanges and interactions rather merely taking the role of responsive individuals. Human beings are also deemed to be intelligent enough to be reflective on what they do and know. Reality is consequently a construct, subjective rather objective. Systems Theory may educate how reality is perceived according to how it is organized and understood. Above all, Society is self-sustaining on its own (Jurish and Myers-Bowman, 1998).
General Systems Theory may be considered as founded by Ludwig von Bertalanffy during the earlier half of the 20th century. Bertalanffy became considered how the study of living beings can be so technical, scientific and mechanical. This is said to limit and “neglect” as well as “deny” to how life functions. Bertalanffy would rather for the perspective on Biology to be a living organism which cannot be pinned down by laws and concepts. His theories were then published after the World War where systems theory began to be embraced by various cross-disciplines. Jurish and Myers-Bowman (1998) add that the second World War in itself was a “major impact on the development of systems theory” where new fields such that of Norbert Wiener’s cybernetics was invented in order to further boost the defense weaponries of an army. Cybernetics emphasized on “feedback systems and communication technology” which allowed a further appreciation of the systems theory as an appreciation of electronics lead to a re-evaluation of how the human brain functions. This application of systems theory was further expounded by Gregory Bateson who integrated both the cybernetic processes to that of human processes which further led to the utilization and application of systems theory to the social science especially the family (Jurish and Myers-Bowman, 1998)
The idea of social activity as identifiable and possibly treated as a system began in the ancient times when Greeks initially perceive of systems as resembling a body, each part with its own role to contribute to this body. Then Thomas Hobbes was said to have taken the idea of society as an organism in his book, Leviathan. These efforts inspire the idea of society as living and working together to sustain itself. According to Kenneth Bausch (1999) Talcott Parsons was the first to apply systems theory in American society. In the book, “The Social Systems”, he proposed the idea of organizing society in to systems as a viable and autonomous guide for research and study and not merely as limiting as “extensions of psychology or manifestations of culture”. The actions of the individuals consisting a society is towards societal goals, “people are determined by society” (Anderson et al, 1999, p. 4). Parsons emphasis is that people sum up to a whole and thus a system can only be understood in its whole than in dividing it into isolated parts. What was prioritized then is the relationships between This is also called the Macro point of view. Another proponent is Habermas who promotes the Action Theory which has to do with the necessity of communication in the existence of a society. By this, individuals need to interaction with each other and form a culture that would stress the importance of roles and functions in order to sustain society in its ongoing processes. This is a more interaction based point of view that emphasizes on the units that comprise society than the society that is collected and built up. By emphasizing on parts, the point of view becomes the atomic. In this regard, it is people who determine society than societal norms, culture and goals determining how people should function. Society is dependent to the people that exist within it and thus, it is dependent on how the individual functions or behaves so to speak. This behavior may comprise of a pattern that will then comprise of a system.
Thus maintaining the system can be performed in four ways. Firstly is to maintain the sense of pattern through stability and institutionalizing such pattern (which may be a challenge to do in curbing the individual to the patterns. The maintenance of the system may also be expressed by goal orientation wherein society is motivated towards the attaining of goals for the sake of the system. Thirdly there is maintenance through adaptation which is through the sacrifice or disposal of some goals in respect to a more necessary one to maintain the organization. Then fourthly there is the integration which is supposed to be the integration of the functions of pattern and goal orientation. By integration, adjustment also becomes essential in order to fully accept goals towards the effectiveness and stability of a pattern. It is what eventually keeps the system intact in its whole self.
The critique with the General Social System Theory was that it idealizes society as that is quiet, peaceful and orderly. Society also comprises of stable and rational individuals all working towards unity. It fails to include the possibilities of chaos, inequality and instability. Scholars dispute that Social Systems are in reality, chaotic and complex as systems are subjected to constant change. While General Systems Theory supposes that societies will proceed to one end, the Complex theory proceeds with the notion of multiple ends. There is no circular motion nor is there a way to go back to where society started. “Once a system has developed along a given path it cannot simply go back again.” This is because relationships upon interrelationships would have formed to “complicated and interwoven” heights. This theory actually disputes the existence of a systems theory as it postulates human beings as inability to be contained and covered by science and unable to supply the multiple levels and dimensions which will enrich it. It regards social systems as too complicated an understanding that cannot be pinned down (Franklin, Skeeter and Warren, 1998).
In the application of System approaches to School District Management, systems theory holds that schools are managed in such a way that they would resemble “organizations, where teachers are accountable for their students’ results”. Systems Theory also promote personalized, subjective and one on one learning where the learning is performed by the student and not provided by the mentor. The philosophy behind this is that the school is a sum of a whole, of each student working positively. Systems theory would make effective and efficient the educational institution through its arrangement of levels supra-systems and subsystems. Because relationships and interactions are emphasized, teachers are encouraged to build relationships with students as students are also necessary in building relationships with each other. With systems theory, students can indeed become “active learners seeking knowledge” because of the personal attention granted to them. This means the school needs to be self-sufficient, open and reflective (Hong et al, 1997).
Systems Theory calls for schools to be synchronized and united in one clearly defined purpose each subsystem with their purpose and functions to meet in order to allow the suprasystem to meet the said goal (through a feedback system). Systems are also supposedly dynamic that will consist of “cycles and trends”. School systems are also by assumption rational thus each child is worthy of such a treatment as rational beings (Sybouts, 1992, p. 25).
Schools should have “sufficient variety, or diversity” in order for it to be creative and responsive as well as self-regulating. The school is influenced by all its constituents and goal-oriented which is usually the “intellectual and emotional development of students” (p. 18) through modified thoughts (output, as well as input of another system such as the student’s families or other systems). In fact this is the major objective of each school which is to precisely “develop educated citizens” (p. 19).
The School District is a suprasystem containing ideally various interdependent subsystems such as the “classroom, an administrative council, a curriculum committee, or an extracurricular student club”. The School District as a suprasystem has relationships with each of its subsystems and to a larger suprasystem such as its “community and regional environments”. The school will be an inter-working of systems and resources outside and inside. Again, systems cannot exist without relationships so the very basic unit of school systems may be “tutoring pairs, project groups, committees, classrooms, school staffs, and entire districts” (p. 19). The classroom or school staff themselves may be a suprasystem of subsystems such as friendship cliques.
Patricia Schmuck and Richard Schmuck (1974) provide the Principles for employing systems theories to the school organization. According to the authors subsystems may consistent of “Learning groups, constituted of students, teacher(s) and curriculum materials.” Communication is established together through a sharing of data and responsibilities. The learning group may only consist of a pair of people or the group can be the entire school district in itself. The subsystems encourage interactions with one another. The changes are performed top-down. Personal relationships would also be established from the “I-Thou transactions.” These systems also have specified goals (p. 21) and are designed in such a way that may predict future outcomes thus leading to flexibility. The system also attends to the “emotional needs of members” in the achievement of the school mission as each member is increasingly sensitive of one another. Learning groups are also above all, interdependent along with the other subsystems and these systems continuously influence each other. This is in lieu of the system theory’s premise of an open and flexible system. This is usually the sources of conflicts due to discrepancies in goals and interdependence. This is natural in a school within the system theory set-up according to Schmuck and Schmuck but the system also holds that it is self-regulating and able to communicate grievances enough to lessen stress caused by the conflicts. There is also the availability of resources and the inevitability of culture.
In applying systems theory to schools, Schmuck and Schmuck propose a four-level framework. To enumerate (1974, p. 94):
1) The individual – Students, teachers, and administrators
2) The learning group – Classrooms and committees;
3) The school organization – The social procedures of the levels working together
4) The external environment- School board, budget, and parents.
By understanding the above mentioned levels, it may be even more possible to strategize a system-oriented school.
2. Critique systemic approaches to school district management associated directly systems-oriented theoretical approaches.
Systems oriented approach to social issues has made its mark in managing or administrating schools especially since schools can be taken as organizations: suprasystems and subsystems. The school is in every right a social system, not just of students and teachers, but also to the families of the students. Thomas Cafferty and Frederic Medway (1992) considers the contribution of school psychology to school psychology. They are related because they have similar origins and philosophies. Cafferty and Medway proposes the treatment of schools as organizations and believe that this allow “effective intervention strategies” with regards to “structure, process and behavior.” Structure means Organizational Structure which is given rise by the mission statement of an organization. It will determine the goal beliefs of the school and purposes of the school. This may enhance the functioning of the organizations.
As organizations, schools may relate to each other and respond to each other. Schools achieve its mission and goals precisely through the cooperation and coordination of its people and systems. More basically, this is performed through constant communication, interaction and building effective relationships that may be guided by effective policies. Everything in the school, despite having to deal with technical aspects such as “budgets, marketing, hierarchies” are systems that exist to manage relationships.
Bureaucracy was the common system or theory that has managed organizations such as schools. The literature is rich with theories, studies, research, critiques as well as analyses. For man times this structure was adapted to several organizations and fields. It introduced concepts such as “decision making, leadership, motivation, organizational politics, and systems theory”(p. 39). Bureaucracies present hierarchies. Some officials are higher than some and there are the presences of domination and authority (and thus subjection and accountability of subordinates). Contracts govern positions, formality, loyalty, technicality, and employment that is paid by salaries. The effect this has on schools is that there is “discontinuity”. This also means the lack of relationships and a prevailing impersonality. Roles are strictly and expected to be followed and employees are hired because of technical skills and abilities. Divisions make it difficult for communication to take place and lack of awareness of one division to another. Work has a tendency to be poorly distributed because some divisions have more responsibilities than others. There is also the prevailing indifference from one division to another such that disables the possibility of assistances. The lack of communication would lead to a lack of policies, a mission statement and core beliefs that would have been the administration’s way to communicate its goals to its subordinates. By having no such communication or policies, there was a vague notion of what to do, how to plan and inconsistency. Responsibilities were also unclear besides proceeding in a schedule. The lack of communication also made it impossible for teachers or students to air their opinions. Because there is a lack of policies, rules, orders and decisions were vague enough to cause internal conflicts, stress and tensions in the bureaucracy.
Thus, there is the Social Systems Theory as an alternative. This involves the need towards communication, interaction and relationships such that the Bureaucracy Theory was unable to address. The bureaucracy emphasizes hierarchy, structures and control while the social system theory involves a more meaningful and defined job beyond mere employment and salaries. They are the sum of a whole, working together for the good of the organization. Subjectivity is prioritized over objectivity as bureaucracy is deemed a dehumanized system for the lack of personal regard to them. Social systems consider the role of relationships in shaping the individual’s behaviour within an organization. It considers the organization as a culture, as consisting of roles, unique and gifted individuals and individuals as substantially enriched by socialization. Roles, rather to be strictly and expected to be followed, are a means towards expression of oneself. Roles, most importantly, are not only individual, but more importantly, social. It involves relationships with other people as teachers for example are necessitated to construct relationships with students, colleagues, and their administrators in order to fully enact on their roles.
Inevitably some would see schools as organizations that are not ideal for Systems theory. Learning may be taken as a complex activity than systematic and organized. David Reilly (1999) emphasized how education reform efforts in American education were unsuccessful in producing more “acceptable learning outcomes” and only end up spending several billions of dollars towards an effective learning for students because it fails to consider learning as a chaotic and complex process. Instead, the focus has largely been on systems theory. Systems theory had apparently limited student learning through low expectations and rigid guidelines. Nonlinear systems theory or the chaos and complex theory is said to be effective in understanding how a student learns and demonstrating this. “Learning is clearly a developmental process” such that cannot be traced or generalized. Students learn differently in different levels, ages, speeds and amounts due to the fact that each student has different ways in processing information. Learning cannot be logical and rational as systems theory would hold. Systems Theory, as mentioned earlier, assumes that there is equifinality and rationality in the organization in question. It is a more optimistic and rather utopic point of view that Reilly (1999) disputes against. Nonlinear systems theory hold that there is “irregular periodicity, sensitivity to initial conditions and minute changes in process, and lack of predictability” which also goes to say much as to how learning takes place. There is no logical procedure. Only then can teachers truly understand how students learn, by being open to various options rather set roles. In a Linear systems theory, Curriculum guidelines are “predictable, sequential and linear” each with certain set expectations to meet such that may cause problems later as it may be invariable to the learning extent of the child. In order to compliment the learner’s chaotic and unpredictable learning ability, the guidelines should not be set and in fact be interchangeable.
Bureaucratic Theory is usually regarded as the traditional model while systems theory is considered as the more innovative. Bureaucratic is hard to disregard in favour of the systems alternative. Tamar Levine, Hanna Shachar and Shlomo Sharan (1999) call systems theory as a combination while bureaucracies are known to divide through its specializations. Bureaucracy does not pay attention to the environment or “on the horizontal (rather than vertical) relationships and interaction in the organization, the exchanges and information flow between colleagues” (p. 2). Systems are known to, in the meantime, “exchange matter, energy and information with their environments” through processes and performances of inputs and outputs allowing it to be self-sustaining. Feedback is taken here as a crucial ingredient in schools especially in reinforcing communication, interaction and relationships between the organization’s systems. Feedback emphasizes that information comes not from one entity (the administration or authority) but rather, everywhere. This may be teams of teachers who will combine forces in order to solve problems. According to the three authors, this system remains to be unknown in today’s schools as the bureaucratic school remains prevailing. All parts are dependent to hierarchy rather interdependent among each other. Schools, according to Levine, Shachar and Sharan are “a strange kind of system” (p. 8) because the systems may not be as interdependent and rather, be “loosely connected” (p. 8) This is true in the cases of students with irregular classes and classmates. There is a prevailing disconnection between students and teachers. For a true systems approach to take place within a school, there is really the necessity to invite innovative teaching methods that will generate feedback loops and interaction rather a one-sided learning (all from which produced and coming from the teacher). Efforts include the changing of schedule, textbooks and inclusion of computer which will promote a sense of interaction. Schools are largely dominated by divided disciplines which fail to see holistic connections. In order to encourage communication among such mentors, they would need to group together and collaborate in solving problems and in the data gathering. Teachers may also collaborate to “formulate schoolwide policies” (p. 9). Basically, “there should be communication between teachers within and between departments dealing with different subject areas; it is equally important that such communication hold meaning for the students” (p. 10). Teachers are responsible of whether the curriculum will be rigid or not, or the collaboration or division of which. Once they are able to employ systems theory, it will be reflective and passed along from top down.
Levine, Shachar and Sharan (1999) consider “the concept of feedback for self-regulation and the goal-oriented nature of systems for transforming input to yield a product of some kind” (p. 16) as the Unique Contributions of Systems Theory to School Organizations. This is because schools have a recurring problem of having sufficient feedback processes that will monitor its processes and allow it to be self-regulated. The authors consider it an infamous problem of having “clear links between means and ends” due to the poor or lack of communication and inability to obtain feedback. This is also brought by the fact that schools tend to follow the traditional Bureaucratic model. This is largely because there is a lack of interest in being a community and accomplishing responsibilities to the good of the organizations. The systems theory indeed perceives of the school as not just an organization but a community. However bureaucratic tendencies still overwhelm and overpower the educational institution especially in teacher and classroom pattern. Levine, Shachar and Sharan (1999) are adamant in their recommendation of using the teams of teachers model as a means towards generating feedback and the systems model. Classrooms needed to be designed in such a way that will compliment the organization, “the whole” of the school. As subsystems embody and are interrelated into suprasystems, classrooms perceivably “incorporate the basic features of the manner in which the school as a whole is organized and operates” (p. 56). The school’s direction is enacted by the merest student following academic tasks.
The ideal school, or the school of tomorrow, will follow the systems theory. There will be “interrelatedness” and “integration” as the school will react not only among itself but to its outside environment (or the community it belongs to). In this manner, communication and interaction take place. Teachers will not be divided in their own classrooms and disciplines for specific amount of times. “The school’s organization will have considerable flexibility and mobility among its component elements” (p. 78) Decision is not only made by teachers but also teachers as participation and collaboration make up of the “critical decisions regarding teaching and learning”. Instruction is not one-sided or coming from teachers alone, but students will be active learners “through processes of problem solving, discussion, investigation, simulation and so forth as individuals or as in teams”. Students will not be alone in this undertaking as they will be supported by their mentors and the resources needed to perform this. Students will also be guided by other people who may be masters in their professions in order to integrate real life experiences in education. Resources will also include the latest technology and data all of which leading to a “production-oriented institutions”. The mission of this said school will be communicated with its processes (means to ends) while being learner centred at the same time as the students’ “interests, needs, and successes” will be addressed as acquired by feedback.
3. ) Demonstrate an understanding of the major concepts in systems-oriented theories, and how they are expressed in the context of school district management structures.
The Independent School Districts of Texas is one of the school districts which has been inching away from the Traditional fold, which would be the Bureaucratic way of managing a school district. It has been adjusting to environmental changes along with other public school districts. The changes have been from top down leading to a School wide Reform to redefine how its organizations and systems are arranged. Bureaucratic systems are known to under utilize and waste human and physical resources due to the lack of integration and interrelation. The State of Texas has consequently promoted a system of organizational changes through small districts or charter school districts. Charter school districts as well as Independent School Districts are now tasked to apply such change.
Having discussed system theories and having treated schools as organizations and having established the growing awareness to reform U.S. education by policy makers from top down, the paper will proceed to apply what has been established to the Charter school Districts and I.S.Ds in the State of Texas. This involves raising the bar to higher standards for not only the students to meet but also the teachers. The immediate solution that appears was the improvement of the system, the organization in which the school functions. Each individual is responsible and expected to accomplish their roles towards an improved learning and enhanced interaction through feedback. The school will also acknowledge that each subsystem is very much representative of the whole. The State of Texas has taken the challenge to upgrade itself to a higher more effective form of education. To do this, the change needs to take place within the system which means acknowledging the need towards interrelations and a clear goal. Most educational reforms opt to enhance a school’s resources which would not be as useful and contributing if it was not integrated along with the internal system, processes and results. If there is no cohesion or an innovative take in education, the reforms will find it difficult to surface. For systemic change to take place and for it to be totally comprehensive and penetrating, an educational environment should ideally employ a systems approach towards change. When one says top-down, that means the Federal government, to the local government, to the school district, to the school building in itself and to its very core: the classroom (which as emphasized, is a suprasystem of subsystems). The administration is linked to the instruction department (consisting of teachers) while the government supports the administration. By creating a flow of communication, interaction and relationship among the systems, systems may be open and flexible. It is necessary for the Educational system to be open because it needs to interact with its environment and within it. In this manner, evaluation and adaptability may be performed. By cohesion, it is possible for a system to function as a whole, from the classroom to the government level. There are Six Design Phases for a systems approach which is Planning, Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. (Russo-Converso, 2001, p. 22)
· Plan: Determine desired outcomes, identify stakeholders that include sponsors, advocates, change agents, and change targets.
· Analysis: Identify gap between “what is and what should be” and causes of the gap. Select alternative solutions (e.g., innovations and interventions) to close or eliminate the gap.
· Design: Create guidelines and processes for implementing and evaluating selected solutions.
· Development: Create innovations and interventions to close or eliminate the gap between “what is and what should be.”
· Implementation: Diffuse the innovation and intervention.
· Evaluation: Formatively measure the effectiveness and efficiency in terms of desired outcomes for the purpose of continuous improvement.
The State of Texas Public Education Mission and Objectives is that every child is given quality education to allow them to reach their potentials and contribute as well as participate in their society. Students will be encouraged and granted several opportunities in order to attain growth and meet standards not only local but also international. The teachers will similarly have to be qualified and effective. Emphasized also is the need to train and develop them. The credo also mentions the needs of an environment that promotes safety and learning, critical to a systems approach organization. One objective is of critical note: “Educators will keep abreast of the development of creative and innovative techniques in instruction and administration using those techniques as appropriate to improve learning” This one objective emphasizes the openness towards a systems approach of the Texas Public Education system. There is also the goal towards resources and implementation of technological resources in order to “increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, staff development, and administration”. There is a top-down approach towards the implementation of technology which also is an objective of a systems approach in order to enhance interaction and communication. The objective emphasizes how improvement must not only be made in the part of students but also the teachers and administrations.
It is important for Teachers to construct relationships with students, colleagues, and their administrators in order to fully enact on their roles. As they determine the instructional department of the school, constant training would be enormous in its contribution to allow them not only to work among students but among themselves as they could expertly provide evaluation and feedback regarding the school system. In this manner, there will be a bridging of communication rather the disconnection that has been plaguing poorly modelled bureaucratic schools. Teachers can enormously contribute to the curriculum which makes their training truly important and they have what it takes to bringing cohesion in a divided school organization. Teachers make critical decisions rearding the school system which emphasizes the need towards participation and collaboration in their part.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment