If the general opinion is that our schools are falling short
of their mission – to educate our youth so as to meet the challenges of
adulthood – then change in those institutions should be central to our
concerns. I have set out to address
social change and, in so doing, have shared with you a set of general strategy
types that aim at instituting change.
They are empirical-rational strategies, power-coercive strategies, and
normative-re-educative strategies.
Presently, I am in the midst of describing and explaining the
normative-re-educative strategies. In my
last posting, I introduced this type and reviewed one of the iconic thinkers,
John Dewey, whom the authors Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne cite as a major
contributor to the development of this general type.[1] In this posting, I want to pick up where I left
off and add the thoughts of two other reputable thinkers and researchers, Kurt
Lewin and Sigmund Freud. Let me first
place these contributions in a framework; that is, from their work, we can
design a general approach to change planning.
Chin and Benne suggest the following: With a commitment to include the change
subject in planning and implementing phases, first, identify needed change,
second, identify range of needed actions, third, find ways to act collaboratively,
fourth, make apparent any unconscious or subconscious elements that are
problematic and need to be addressed deliberately, fifth, selectively
incorporate any relevant – and deemed useful – behavioral knowledge and
technique components. A few overarching
elements should be kept in mind when following such an overall approach: information concerning norms, values, and
attitudes are crucial, relationships both internal and external to the
organization might need to be changed, and people technologies (e.g.,
organizational plans) might be as, if not more, important than thing
technologies (e.g., computers). And a last
bit of warning: manipulation should be seriously avoided. Any conflicts in goals, aims, values, in
order to be productive, need to be worked out openly and honestly.
Kurt Lewin introduced what might seem a bit obvious today,
but was quite new back in the mid ‘40s when he engaged in his pioneer work. He emphasized the need to have researchers,
educators, and activists work in close collaboration. The general approach known as action research
is first attributed to Lewin. His main
aim was to address normative change, not just cognitive change or perceptual
change. In order to seek and accomplish
such change, it becomes imperative that planning and implementation include the
efforts of those who are to be the subject of the sought after change.
Sigmund Freud’s work with the subconscious is also critical
to the normative-re-educative strategies because such mental content is
influential in identifying, reacting, and evaluating any attempts at meeting
problematic conditions. Subconscious and
even unconscious beliefs and values must be, first, identified, and, second,
openly dealt with in order to overcome their dysfunctional aspects. A second contribution of Freud is his therapeutic
model; that is, his advocacy for the direct intervention of the therapist in
the lives of his or her patients. In the
case of organizational change, that would be the direct intervention of the
change agent in the organizational life of the client. In the context of this posting, the
organization would be that of the school and the change agent would be
specially trained teachers and other staff members that would take on the
challenge of planning and instituting change at the school site with, of
course, the knowledge and support of administrative officials such as district
officials, the principal, and assistant principal in charge of curriculum.
Before ending this posting, let me share what Chin and Benne
identify as the two main options in normative-re-educative change efforts. They are a focus on problem-solving and an
awareness of existing norms, values, and attitude. Given the context I have provided and based
on my own experiences working in schools, I would suggest that what should be
centered upon if one wants a school staff to institute a federalist mode of
operation is a problem-solving focus. Without
engaging in any manipulative activities – change agents should be upfront about
their goals and aims – by dealing with problems, one can adopt more of an
evolving strategy than an abrupt policy dictum.
Again, based on my experience, I would say most teachers are aware that
their assigned schools are not as productive as they could be. If this general awareness can be mutually
analyzed and specific problems can be identified, then the whole change process
can begin by addressing problem areas felt by many in the school community. By doing so, the process can be defined as a
succession of practical and mutually desired efforts at meeting and improving less
than optimal conditions.
In my next posting, I will look at more specific
methodologies associated with normative-re-educative strategies. I would like to emphasize before ending this
entry that what is being considered here is a fundamental change for a school
and that what now exists in a school is seen by most of a staff as not only how
things are, but how things need to be.
It is just what a school site is in terms of its social relationships
and expectations. This is particularly
true of staff members who have not worked at many different schools much less in
different communities. These individuals
have little to no comparison by which to judge the soundness of how their
current school operates. There are even
those on a school staff who see what is as what should be. As I mentioned above, a lot of the motivation
and rationale for such a position is based on subconscious beliefs, attitudes,
values, and norms. They do not change
readily and, for some, will never change.
Success, under such conditions, is not guaranteed. But the effort is worth it; a federalist
school will enable, more readily, a federalist civics curriculum. As such, a change in this direction will
prepare those students to become better citizens. That is the main argument of this blog.
[1] Based on the theoretical work: Chin, R. and Benne, K. D. (1985).
General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin
(Eds.), The Planning of Change (pp.
22-45). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
No comments:
Post a Comment