THE TESTING PHASE

With having completed, in the last posting, a review of the concerns one should have of individual staff member while implementing a change strategy, this blog will now return to considering the change landscape.  There are three phases remaining in the change model this blog is describing:  testing, evaluating, and finalizing.

          In terms of both testing and evaluating, teachers are familiar with those types of activities.  They evaluate student progress all the time.  Therefore, a change approach should take advantage of that knowledge.  Teachers are trained to design objectives, competency measures, evaluation instruments, and the like.  They are told to look for those behaviors that indicate objectives are met; they even think, beforehand, what those behaviors should be. 

This more typical view of evaluation looks for specific indicators as to what constitutes learning substantive content or skill attainment, such as discovering relevant information or formulating generalizations.  That is what the aims in the classroom entail.  In terms of change in school policy, however, the objectives are more open ended.  This, therefore, creates a somewhat inconsistency in how a change agent approaches a change challenge.

In an attempt to be clear, this blog has argued that change efforts should be about addressing specific problems.  As much as possible, this should be the case.  But with that proviso, when one talks of personnel interactions, an institutional landscape, the unpredictability of school dynamics, one is humbled by the openness of such an environment.  So, while a targeted problem is specific, and a proposed change is as specific as possible, the ramifications of such attempts can be and usually are widespread in a school’s setting.

To illustrate this point, teachers and other staff members have a lot going on.  They are in a social milieu that have its patterns, its friendships, its antagonisms, and its normal psychological forces – such as, the lack of self-awareness most people have.  This blog has stated that a lot of one’s behavior comes from unintended or unaware motivations.  And then there is a student body with all the challenges of either young childhood in elementary schools or adolescence in secondary schools.  It’s a truly dynamic place.

Earlier in this blog, the writer shared an experience where a change was being instituted in a school in which he was a member of the faculty.  He noted that fellow teachers who verbally committed to the change, when the time came, they behaved as they had before and not in the way the change demanded.  This was not done from a malicious motivation; it was that those teachers’ hearts were not changed.  They thought they had bought into the newer policy, but they had not.

What these conditions indicate is that testing, evaluating, and finalizing – the last three phases of the model – is not a 1-2-3 process.  The first thing to do is to break down the change, no matter how specific it is, and devise testing portions – sub portions that can be implemented in limited bases.  Once that is set up and performed, testers see what happens, ask how teachers feel and whether they need “practice” in this newer protocol or process, and think up any modifications to the initial plan.  This is a rough outline of what is described in this and next set of postings.

Testing:  Under testing there are various activities.  The ground work for this phase, at a minimum, is:  a specific change is identified; the change is sufficiently analyzed so that sub portions of that change are identified in such a way that they can be tested individually; a list of objectives – what the sub portion is to accomplish – are stated; the logistical provisions – mostly time and place – is determined; and the actual testing is performed.

          A description of the evaluation phase of the testing is left for the next posting.  At this point, the concern is to make the testing conditions, as much as possible, reflective of how the change will be administered once the change is in place.  Of course, given that a sub portion, in a testing situation, is isolated from the rest of the change, this will affect how viable the testing will be.  But, using good sense can attempt to ameliorate this shortcoming. 

The testing is not only to see if the planned change is viable, but to get subjects use to performing any new behaviors the change entails.  While this next aspect will be revisited in the next phase, here a consideration of the philosophy, approach, psychological, and sociological beliefs of the individuals directly involved in the testing should have been estimated and considered. 

This blog has given an overview of what the prominent views of these domains are starting with the posting, “A Functional Philosophy of Education,” February 16, 2016.  The point was made that individual educators will hold consistent ideas across these domains – if they hold, for example, a conservative educational philosophy, they will most likely have a conservative approach in how they conduct their instruction or see their students psychologically.

          A look at the change this writer is promoting can be used to illustrate what is being described here.  He promotes a change in curricular content for the subjects of civics and American government.  This change proposal is specific in that it is more concrete than simply calling for an improvement in civics education, but broad enough to have numerous sub portions. 

Let one sub portion of that change proposal be that a particular unit of instruction of the proposed curricular change be inserted into the existing offering under the course, American government.  For the purposes here, its objectives – not instructional ones, but ones that are written with this change testing in mind – give the testers a sense of what the implementation of the sub portion should demonstrate as to whether the change is workable.

Questions can be asked:  does the abstraction level of the content match the sophistication levels of the students; do the teachers feel comfortable with the material; do they perceive the material as legitimate; do the students genuinely reflect over the issues the content presents; have teachers demonstrated an internal motivation to utilize the material once they are not under the testing situation; etc.? 

          Another related issue, albeit more specific, is whether the testers are seeking quantitative information or qualitative information.  The Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching offers a list of conditions under which each form of research should be utilized.  Qualitative research or testing should be used when researchers/testers wish to gather information or use information that has the following qualities:

Seek to explore, explain and understand phenomena – What? Why?[;] Data provided as a narrative, pictures or objects[;] Methods less structured – Data gathered through interviews, observations, content analysis, etc.[;] Asks open-ended questions in an effort to explore[;] Research design has flexibility – can emerge and evolve as study develops[;] Results may be presented subjectively – may reveal biases, values or experiences that impact how the results are interpreted[1]

          Quantitative research or testing should be used when researchers/testers wish to gather information or use information that has the following qualities:

Seeks to confirm a hypothesis about a phenomena – How many?[;] Data is in the form of numbers and statistical results[;] Highly structured methods – Data gathered through the use of tools, equipment, questionnaires, etc.[;] Asks closed-ended questions that give quantifiable answers[;] Research design is highly structured and laid out in advance of the study[;] Results are documented using objective language[2]

It should be pointed out, that some of the information sought in a normative-re-educative change strategy would lend itself to quantitative information – student testing scores – and some would be qualitative information – attitudinal surveys of subjects.  Testing should be prepared to implement testing procedures that summons both forms of information.

As for the other aspects of this phase, such as what wording should be used in an attitudinal survey, is concerned, they would be addressed in a more extensive presentation of this model.  What is of more concern here is the logistical challenges with setting up and conducting this testing process.  This should be given ample planning time.  Testers should take to heart the notion that much is dependent on testing results. 

A faulty testing phase can either lead to implementation of a dysfunctional change or the dismissal of a useful change that, if implemented, could have led to significantly better educational results or more efficiency.  And again, the testing itself can be a time to climatize the subjects into “doing” the change.  A few dry runs with directed supervision can ease the upcoming phase of finalizing the change.

There are, in the professional literature, sophisticated models for testing or analyzing organizational operations.  Professional change agents are trained in these models.  But, unless a school district – a relatively affluent one – wishes to institute change in the schools of its jurisdiction, a specific school within a district needs depend on in-house teachers to plan and implement sought after change.  That includes using above ideas to devise responsible testing protocol.

A lot of this is common sense and teachers have an advantage in that they are trained in issues associated with evaluation.  And that will be the next phase to be described as it is the topic of the next posting.  As a final word in this posting, the writer wants to leave the reader with a thought. 

The nation’s public-schools are under siege.  There are those who repeatedly criticize them and think up “reforms” whose intent is to do them in.  They have a point; these schools should be doing better.  But they should be saved and to save them in some functional form, change must occur in grand fashion.  For those who want to have a national, viable public-school system, learning how to “do” change is going to be important.

---

[1] “When to Use Quantitative Methods,” Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching, accessed February 15, 2018, https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/quantresearch/whentouse.

[2] Ibid.

FACTORS AFFECTING SUBJECTS

This model of change – one offered in terms of a set of phases in a change effort and described over the last several postings – designates the next phase to be conflict amelioration.  This phase presupposes a conflict, but such a presupposition is not far-fetched.  This blog has contextualized change as a political activity.  Why?  Because it is, by its nature, an effort to get people to do what they would not do otherwise.  That is an exercise in power; ergo, it’s political and conflictual.

          Conflict is when two or more engaging parties have opposing or incongruent interests relevant to a concern.  This is true even if the general environment in which the conflict occurs is more of a public square.  If that general environment is more of an arena, that tends to intensify any specific conflict that develops within that space.

          If the reader ever worked in a hostile workplace, he/she would probably readily agree with such a general description.  At times, a general environment might even cause specific conflicts to occur or intensify.  Such environments are usually characterized by low levels of trust, comradery, and of people disliking each other.  In such a workplace, people are looking for disagreements.

          Of course, that describes the extreme.  Things usually don’t get that bad.  But to the degree they do, this is one of those landscape conditions of which a change agent need to consciously aware.  Here, the more basic question is:  how does a change agent deal with conflicts as they arise?  This blog addresses the various factors the agent should be prepared to think of and address as he/she encounters the conflicts a change effort will generate.

          The reader is referred to two previous postings for a review of some of the factors this blog has shared in the past and are relevant to this posting.  The titles for those postings are “The Structure and Processes of the Mind” (August 30, 2016) and “The Structure and Processes of the Mind (cont.)” (September 1, 2016).

So, what are these factors?  They are presented below in terms of categories beginning with contextual inheritance.

Contextual Inheritance:  Contextual inheritance is made up of two elements:  social-cultural inheritance and genetic inheritance.  Simply, social-cultural inheritance relates to the cultural tradition in which the individual has been socialized.  These factors can and usually do exert an array of social forces and will affect how the individual will act and even think and feel during a change process.

If the organization exists in an urban space, such as an urban school, it is likely to be a multicultural environment; naturally this will cause that space being affected by various cultural influences. This includes an array of norms, customs, cultural narratives (including ethnic, racial, religious, and national traditions), values, and other cultural legacies that relate to the challenges associated with the change the individual is confronting. 

On the other hand, genetic inheritance includes all those biologically determined forces influencing the individual’s decision-making processes.  For example – and very importantly, – genetically determined level of energy a person brings to life and its challenges will animate or depress the entire motivational outlook a person brings to a demand for change and political challenges that effort entails.[1]

One aspect of this predisposed element of genetics is what in one’s environment draws one’s attention.  According to Daniel Kahneman,[2] the brain is lazy.  That is, people are wired to avoid reflection and to just go along and be satisfied to think in intuitive modes.  When confronted with a challenge, an individual will more likely jump to some solution without thinking about the situation.  He calls this System 1 thinking. 

But obviously, there are times when the mind is engaged, and reflection occurs.  That is, a person delves into long-term memory; the type of memory that is composed of knowledge and beliefs that are retained for more than thirty seconds and is cognitively available to apply to new situations confronting a person.

Meaningful – transformative – change demands is System 2 thinking, the thinking that can be described as reflective.  There is something about certain kinds of situations that spurs the mind to mull over what is being perceived and brings to bear memorized information that can assist in meeting what the situation calls for.  It could be a problem, a delight, a curiosity, or an emotionally inducing image.  Some are genetically determined, and some are culturally determined.

Usually, in such cases, at least initially, there is a surprise element to it.  Apparently, System 2 needs prodding to get going.  Generally, it needs to be activated to be able to arrive at a satisfying result that “resolves” the situation in question, as when it solves a problem, understands a delight, quells a curiosity, or handles an emotion.  At least, those are the types of stimuli that System 2 naturally sets out to address. 

Decision-Making Domains:    The second set of factors is the mental domains that influence the individual in his/her decision-making.  Yes, this is part of the genetic inheritance, but the domains focus on the moment of decision-making.  To begin, there are three domains:  the ideal, the real, and the physiological.

The real consists of what is known or believed to be the actual elements of what exists.  This can be internally, within the individual, or environmentally, what is happening or exists in the world beyond the individual.  Again, the natural tendency is to establish an automatic (System 1) mental disposition in viewing that reality.

But the real is what stirs one to react to a stimulus.  The real domain is, to varying degrees, organized by the mental structures the individual holds.  For a person with a reasonable sense of rationality, that structure consists of theories or models, generalizations, concepts, and factual claims.  This listing ranges mental images from the most abstract to the least abstract. 

 Of course, what is real will deviate to varying degrees from how the mind “knows” the real, even in cases when the perception is stronger than merely a belief and is held as rock-solid knowledge.  One’s ability to “know” the truth is less than perfect; that means, one, ultimately, constructs what he/she considers to be true. 

The ideal is those aspects of one’s thinking that relates to what the individual believes should be.  Each person has a set of beliefs that makes claims on what that person holds to be good and what is bad according to ideals the individual espouses to oneself and/or to others.  Elements of the ideal do not dictate behavior – people do “sin” – but they can and often do influence behavior.  This is what makes up what this blog has called an espoused theory.

The third domain is the physiological.  This is that portion of one’s thoughts that correspond to the genetic inheritance one has and was described above.  One’s genetic reaction to a deprivation of food, for example, becomes cognitively recorded as hunger.  Hunger motivates one to eat.  This is a relatively simple example, but physiological mental elements can be less than readily perceived.[3]

Emotional Dispositions:  The third set of factors is the emotional dispositional filter.  This mental orientation is not a product of reality, but of feelings.  Such emotions as anger, love, loyalty, trust, humor, comradery, and the like will be significantly influential in the decisions one makes, including those that are political in nature.  At times reactions by-pass a person’s decision-making capacities and due to emotions, are purely reflexive.  Here the portion of the brain, the amygdala, plays the determining role.[4]

Of particular importance is whatever emotions are brought to the fore will lead to one of several dispositions.  These include a solo disposition, an allying disposition, and/or an antagonistic disposition.  The overall disposition a person feels in reacting to a confrontation, itself, can be based on one of these options or the possibility that the individual makes no choice in this regard.  That is, a disposition that is indifferent to these choices.  And, in addition, a person might react one way today and another way tomorrow – it’s hard to predict.

A political theory holds that when a party is in a weakened position, he/she/they will seek alliances.  If the party is in a strong/er position, he/she/they will try to isolate the participants in a conflict arena; i.e., discourage others from participating.  That is why those who represent the powerful demean or avoid alliances – as “outside agitators” – and those who represent the weaker parties, actively seek alliances.[5] 

Action Modes:  The fourth set of factors is the intended mode of action chosen by the individual.  This is the simplest of the factors; there are only two possibilities.  A person, when confronted with a change situation and its political nature, can either demand something politically and/or support someone or something politically.  These act as a factor in that given the limitation of the choice, it affects how the subject sees the situation.[6]

But if applied to emotional dispositions and other factors, this leads to four optional types as a party offers support or proposes demands.  They can be short or long-term interests and they be individual or collective self-interests.  As one combines these options, four possibilities are formed:  an individual acts in pursuing immediate self-interest, an individual acts in pursuing long-term self-interest, a collective acts in pursuing immediate self-interest, or a collective acts pursuing a long term self-interest. 

While there are shades among these options – an option can be intermediate self-interest – the general thinking, planning, and intent is to either be immediate – what is good for the party now – or have long term self-interest – what is good for the party, say, a year from now.  In this sense, action modes set parameters on available behavior options.

Interactive Tenor:  And the fifth and last factor affecting the decision of an individual – which will affect the consequences of whatever action is taken – is the interactive tenor one adopts.  Here, the choices come directly from transactional analysis and they are a “parent” interactive tenor, an “adult” interactive tenor, or a “child” interactive tenor.  Again, the factor is that there are psychological dispositions that result in which tenor the subject takes.[7]

The “parent” tenor is demanding and authoritative.  The “adult” is reasonable and calculating.  The “child” is feel-good seeking and immediate.  Each of these is more complex, but these short descriptions give one a good sense of what each tenor generates in the form of behavior.

Admittedly, these descriptions are oversimplified accounts of what goes on within a subject when faced with a change proposal or a change condition.  This model indicates what the dynamics are when these factors are in “action” in a “change episode.”  By reviewing them, adopting them as qualities, an agent can look for them and react in ways suitable to his/her purposes.  Also, one would benefit from understanding what consequences are likely when each of these factors are “doing their thing” in actual confrontations.

A word on the role subconscious or nonconscious mental “thoughts” have on one’s decision-making follows.  That is, that many, if not most, of these images are channeled within the mind that bypasses reflection.  They inform System 1 thinking and leads to the intuitive responses that thinking produces.  For example, one who sees a traffic accident might attribute blame more readily to intoxication if that person had an alcoholic parent.  As this blog describes it:  it’s a rumble in the jungle of the mind.

---

[1] See Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017).  This source is an excellent and thorough review of the biological makeup of the brain and how its various elements affect behavior, especially in terms to what is considered good or bad behavior.

[2] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast, and Slow, (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).

[3] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.

[4] Ibid.

[5] E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York:  Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).

[6] A whole approach to the study of politics is known as political systems and the initial source of this thinking is David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1953).  Easton identifies supports and demands as the two forms of inputs – emanating from the domestic population or from sources in other nations – which the political system responds to in forming policy.

[7] Thomas Anthony Harris, I’m Ok, You’re Ok (New York, NY:  Avon Books, 1967).

INTERPERSONAL DYNAMICS WITH STAFF

A great bulk of this blog’s treatment of change, its current interest, deals with issues that one can associate with interpersonal dynamics.  The preceding postings of this blog has been reviewing a set of phases an organizational change process might have.  In terms of the phases being reviewed, those set of activities identified as “negotiating” has to do with how a change agent interacts or should interact with a school’s staff. 

The next phase, “conflict ameliorating,” (the topic of the next posting) addresses how a change agent interacts with individual staff members.  The first, negotiating, is the topic of this posting.  What distinguishes these two phases from the other phases of the change model, upon which this treatment is based, is the shift to more psychological concerns. 

Negotiating

Any proposed change – especially if the change involves a long-standing policy – will have its detractors.  Again, as stated earlier in this blog, things are the way they are for a reason or set of reasons and often the reason(s) bolster the interests of significant staff members.  If nothing else, change calls on people having to deal with extra work.  This is true even if over time the change will be more efficient and is a labor-saving innovation.

          Often the change includes unknowns – even unknown unknowns.  That is to say:  there are usually unaccounted for consequences, unforeseeable results from changes that only time will reveal.  Any staff member who has just about any amount of experience will have had those experiences that demonstrate this upsetting quality associated with change. 

One has heard sayings – such as, “leave good enough alone” – that betray this bias against change.  So why be so committed to change?  Reasons vary among organizations.  If a business is involved, a lack of profits might motivate change; in terms of a governmental institution, such as public schools, accumulated evidence pointing to a lack of success might lead to increased demands for change.

          Having stated that, that does leave one with dealing with the natural tendencies of how people interact under various levels of pressure which change usually causes.  And this brings up how individuals see their world.  This includes what this blog has addressed in its treatment of change factors. This includes the complex web of brain functions (System 1 and System 2 thinking), perceptions (the real, the ideal, and the physiological domains), the political stage (be it an arena or a square), and modes of communication (parent-adult-child modes).  These are factors that this blog had addressed. 

All of this is a dynamic, most of the time jumbled, and difficult to visualize.  For example, in terms of the perception domains (the real, the ideal, and the physiological), the following was described earlier in this blog.[1]  Here is a restatement of that description:

·        The domain of the real is what the individual, mostly through his/her senses, sees as the physical and emotional aspects of a given situation – the current or past state-of-affairs.  This includes any relevant recollections the individual has.  What the person senses is real will vary from what is real since the human capacity of recording reality accurately is far from perfect. 

·        The domain of the ideal is what the individual holds should be real.  That is, the person is apt to project onto any situation a sense of what the situation ought to have been, what it ought to be, and/or what it ought to become.  Such evaluations are based on the attitudes, norms, and values the person has either inherited from his/her culture or the influences of other current associations such as family members, friends, workmates, etc. or what the “lessons” of life experiences has “taught” the individual.  The prevailing media also can and, in many cases, has an influence.

At times, the individual has developed his/her own set of preferences by reflecting on life in general or on relevant situations from the person’s past.  In any event, the individual who is affected – emotionally snared by a situation – will respond with a notion or two about what should have been, should be, and/or should become that is relevant to the situation. 

·        And the last domain, the physiological, relates directly to the contextual aspects of the genetic inheritance the person carries along with him/her.  A perhaps silly example would be if the person is confronted with a change expectation by an attractive, sexually desirable person.  He/she might be disposed to at least listen to the proposal if for no other reason than to extend contact with such a messenger.

In this type of situation, what is popularly referred to as “hormonal” influences, kick in and affect subsequent behavior.  Of course, this type of influence takes on many different guises and often the subject might not be conscious of the physiological influences being engaged.  Madison Avenue counts on this factor.

          Often, behaviors are not thought out, but instinctive reactions as System 1 thinking, the lazy mental fallback, usually determines how one behaves.  Under negotiating, the aim is to view this overall platform and plan and implement negotiating strategies that best meet these tumultuous forces. 

How well is a change agent expected to perform with such tumult.  A change agent, in his/her negotiating efforts, is probably not going to get it right initially.  He/she will fall short of what he/she is trying to accomplish through a give and take process.  One works at his/her strategy, tries it, evaluates it, and gets better at it.  Practice might not make perfect, but it tends to make better.

What this blog offers is an overview of what the factors are and, by doing so, suggests certain avenues to pursue in this endeavor.  Negotiating takes various forms.  These forms, when considered in terms of their actions, suggest a progression. 

One form is discussion.  Here the participants simply express opinions and, at least, support those positions with facts.  The aim of discussion is not to convince others, but to inform them what the speaker's preferences are.  Pains should be taken not to come across too aggressive and to communicate that the agent simply wants to talk about what ails the school.  It is also a way to introduce pertinent facts affecting whatever deficiencies is the subject of the concern.

The second form is argument – not heated argument, but expressions of opposite opinions compared to some other participant.  Argument also calls for supportive evidence, but in addition will provide generalizations or principles that logically connect the facts to the conclusion one is promoting.  In other words, these statements warrant the connection.  Argument is a further step that takes on some rigor and reflects logical thinking.

And the third form is debating.  This is a formal activity and is set up with judge(s) to determine which side wins the argument or determines what will be done.  Debating – and this goes for the other forms – is deliberative.  That is, the aim is to determine what should be done, not the forensic aim of determining who or what was responsible for a problem situation.  In debating, not only are facts, warrant statements, and conclusions included, but also backing for the warrant, and reservations and/or qualifications are included.

It should be noted that organizations, both private and public, have introduced formal debating into their deliberations.  They encourage a staff to be specific, nuanced, and targeted.  Their aim is to determine whether the staff should go in one direction or another.  It also calls for interested parties to delineate what they perceive policy should contain.  Further, they are called upon to defend that position.[2]

In all this, an agent tries to utilize Aristotle’s three qualities of good argumentation:  ethos, pathos, and logos.  Ethos is the character of the arguer; pathos is the emotions an argument elicits; and logos is logical reasoning called upon in constructing the promoted position.[3]  As one progresses from discussion to arguing to debating (if it gets that far), these qualities are more essential in securing success and in being responsible in the effort.

---

[1] See posting, “Domains and Dispositions, November 6, 2015.

[2] Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument Stephen (London, England:  Cambridge University Press, 1969).

[3] Jarrod Atchison, The Art of Debate – A Transcript Book (Chanilly, VA:  The Great Courses, 2017).

OTHER CONCERNS OF THE LANDSCAPE

This blog has been reviewing an organizational change model that identifies the following phases:  problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” rule-making, information gathering, testing, evaluating, negotiating, conflict ameliorating, and finalizing.  To date, the first three phases have been highlighted.  This posting will look at the next two:  rule-making and information gathering.

Rule-Making

Logically, if a change effort has met the problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” concerns of this model, an internal need arises.  An organized change effort needs to establish its rules.  This can be viewed in two ways:  one, what the potential change is – in as specific language as possible – and, two, how are the change agents going to proceed in its change efforts? 

The first of these is self-evident – it logically falls from the problem identification and the unfreezing activities.  The change process is, at this point, enough along to zero-in on devising the first version of what the change is to be.  In terms of this account, that would be a change in a curricular aspect of the school’s offerings.  This might be a change in the scope of what is taught – the content of a subject – or the sequence – the instructional process the teachers use in one or more of its courses.  Of course, it can be both the scope and sequence of a course(s) of study.

For example, this writer, has proposed a change in the scope of civics education.  This has been extensively described and explained in this blog.  Specifically, the change would be in the content of what comprises either civics or American government courses.  Presently, the argument holds that the content of those courses is guided by what this writer refers to as the natural rights construct of governance and politics.  The proposal this writer is promoting is that that guidance should emanate from a different construct, i.e., federation theory. 

While this change encompasses a lot of implications in the study of civics, a summary can be stated as changing the content of those courses that now holds prevalent liberty as a trump value to one that holds societal welfare as prevalent.  If interested, the reader is directed to the numerous past postings of this blog that present this argument.

As for the second aspect of rule-making, the change in a group’s processes, deserves more attention.  That is, in terms of how the change process is to proceed, the emphasis is the formation of rules that allow federation principles to take root.  Overall, the effort is to engender a feeling of partnership initially among the cadre – the initial group of teachers that are seeking the change – and eventually the entire staff of the school – at least that’s the aim.

This overall feeling entails many organizational qualities such as the values and attitudes that include trust, appreciation of long-term interests, a communal sense, and the like.  When such goals are enunciated or reflected by appropriate rules, there is a public commitment to such values and attitudes.

This blog has already made the distinction between theories-in-use and espoused theories.  That is the theories one formulates to reflect one’s ideals and those theories that are formed as one faces the challenges of the day.  Rules are an organizational way to further establish espoused theories.  They don’t guarantee that “sinning” will not take place, but they help avoid it. 

Throughout this blog, there are concerns that might be thought of when designing rules.  More comment will be made in subsequent postings when this treatment of change addresses interpersonal dynamics, but in terms of the potential change landscape, there are various elements that need to be considered.

For example, are individual agents bound to share all meaningful information he/she gathers with all other agents.  This can pop up if friendships are involved, especially between members of the change effort and others not so involved.  One can envision certain statements, actions, or other developments arising where embarrassing information might materialize.  It is best to foresee such possibilities as best as change agents can do so.

To further the example, what if the change effort has a racial element to it?  What if a friend expresses a racist attitude or value?  This can be expressed under the assumption that the exchange is in confidence.  Does this sort of situation deserve a rule indicating how to handle such an eventuality?

Rules, of course, varies according to various concerns.  Race, sexual matters (such as orientation), criminal records, certification issues, rumors, reputational issues are but a few potential areas change agents need to consider in this activity of rule-making.  This process should or needs to consider both the substance of the change effort and the people involved in that effort. 

It also marks a formalization of the entire effort and, as such, it takes on certain social expectations of professionalism and, in some cases, legal demands.  A change agent needs to be aware of this and some research should be done.  Of course, this adds to the need of having the principal involved.

Information Gathering

          This next phase was mentioned above and really is one that can be done at any time during the entire change effort.  In terms of the progression indicated by the above order of phases, the emphasis is on gathering information relevant to the specific proposed change.  This potentially can be quite a variety of subjects.  It can be curricular information, legal information, department of education information, district information, personnel information, and so on.  Some of these areas are sensitive.  Some is public information, semi-public information, or private information.

          For example, personnel files, which in the public-school system are government files can in part be private; they might hold sensitive, private information such as medical information.  Usually, if they are sensitive, they will not be open to fellow employees gaining access.  But, the mere seeking of such information can be upsetting to the person in question.  Now, most change efforts would not find such information relevant, but this parameter should be mentioned regarding this phase of information gathering.

          A more common concern is the teaching habits of fellow teachers.  As has been indicated in this blog in other postings, teachers, in general, have been allowed to see their classrooms as their domains.  Many teachers do not see their workspace as a public place, but it is.  This writer has suggested that a good evaluative tool would be to insert cameras in the classrooms so that administration can monitor what happens in classrooms.  Probably a lot of teachers would find such a practice as invasive and unprofessional – but is it?

          This is not what is being suggested here.  It is mentioned to illustrate how teachers tend to feel about what happens in their classes.  When a change agent asks about these practices – how a teacher conducts his/her lessons – the agent might face serious resistance.  So, this attitude – possibly based on misinformation – needs to be addressed directly. 

First, what is believed and felt by a teacher corps or subgroup of teachers should be ascertained and, after such determination is made, a strategy, if needed, should be devised and implemented to either change those beliefs and attitudes or accommodate them.  Overall, what teachers do or how they perform in public schools is a public matter.  And this is but one area into which a cadre of change agents need to look.

The next posting will look at testing and evaluating.

INITIAL CONCERNS OF THE LANDSCAPE

Organizational change models seem to be similar, one to the other.  Identify what needs changing, devise a solution, gather up the resources, implement the solution, test or evaluate progress, adjust the strategy, and, once one determines what works, finalize or “freeze” the solution in place – the new status quo. 

Of course, various models will add to this general pattern.  They will either adjust the overall process to meet the needs of particular staff members – e.g., leaders – or they will be more sensitive to some area of concern – e.g., psychological factors, such as fear or excessive ambition.

This is mentioned because this blog in its current treatment of change, is about to pick up on one of these models.  It does this more out of convenience, as just alluded to, many of them are similar.  But here the difference is that the model will be used more as a guide.  The model was first presented in an earlier posting. 

See posting, “‘A Changing’ We Will Go,” November 20, 2015.  In that posting, this model is described more as a progression of phases, instead of steps.  That is how it will be referred to here.  It will also be the foundation of this and several subsequent postings.  The phases are:  problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” rule making, information gathering, testing, evaluating, negotiating, conflict ameliorating, and finalizing. 

And as it has been emphasized before in this blog, while the phases seem to follow a logical progression, in real life application, they need not follow this order.  This is especially true for the “middle” phases.  For example, conflict ameliorating can happen at any time in a change effort.

The last posting did identify an early need in the change process; that is, a change agent needs to determine how much of an arena or a public square the school site is.  An arena is characterized as being contentious; a square is characterized as being collaborative.  The point there was to indicate that transformative change – change that aims at changing attitudes and values – is assisted by “square” qualities.

The reader is invited to visit that posting if he/she missed it.  Here, the assumption is that the school environment sufficiently supports a square view to be able to proceed with a transformative change effort.  And the other pre-process determination, already reviewed, is the determination that at the school in question – and in terms of this blog’s concern – there exists significant deficiencies in student performance relative to the standards this blog has identified.[1]

This blog will now begin to review these phases:

Problem Identification

In problem identification, that is in identifying a problem that deserves transformative treatment, one encounters a phase that utilizes the standards regarding student performance and accomplishments (cited above).  Some readers might think of other areas of concern could generate this level of seriousness for which this approach could be suited; e.g., traffic problems around the school site, where there might be a safety issue.  Fine, but when it comes to the topic of this blog, curriculum, the concern is the level of student success or, more accurately, the lack of success.

The target problem should be as specific as possible.  This will be further explained as part of the concerns associated with “unfreezing,” a subsequent phase.  But as a foreshadowing message, an example of a suitable target would be bullying that exists on campus. 

Of course, this blog has already conveyed information in terms of problem identification when it reviewed the standards it is applying to school conditions and determining if deficiencies exist.  Therefore, this posting will leave this phase with these cursory words.

Staffing

In terms of staffing, of course, a teacher is not responsible or has the authority to hire people to the school staff.  And that goes for dismissing them.  But he/she can manage, to some degree, who will be most involved with the activities associated with his/her efforts at school-site change.  Again, in a federated approach, the goal is to solicit the active contributions of those who will be affected by the eventual change(s).  In terms of transformative change, that would tend to be more than those who should change their behavior patterns.

This “staffing” consists of identifying those staff members, mostly teachers, he/she can organize into a relatively small cadre of fellow-change agents.  These don’t have to be colleagues who totally agree with the organizer of such an effort.  As a matter of fact, some disagreement is helpful.

In terms of this cadre, the organizer-agent would seek out those colleagues who demonstrate energy for the effort.  Knowledge about change theory is helpful; so is a nurturing parent disposition[2] and a “square” perspective.  It is helpful to have common base of knowledge, especially in terms of change and curriculum, among this cadre.

What if the faculty is predominately either biased toward a strict father morality and/or an arena view of work or life in general?  Does one just throw one’s hands into the air and give up?  Not necessarily so.  But a useful thing to do is to communicate in the language of the audience.  English?  Yes, of course, but what is being referred to is those phrases, words, assumptions shared by the school staff. 

For example, if the staff is partial to arena thinking, then it is more competitive in its “language.”  The change agent can use references to the school’s deficiencies as a reflection of how poorly it is doing compared to other schools, either in the immediate district or in a broader region, such as the state or the nation.  This should be done in as honest a way as is reasonable.  Part of the aim is to shift to a more “square” orientation and a nurture parent morality.[3]  But one does not get a person to even listen if he/she speaks in terms of attitudes and values foreign to that person.

Overall – and it was restated above and will be again – one should remember that these phases, while presented in a somewhat logical progression, don’t need to be followed in this order.  So, “staffing” doesn’t have to proceed problem identification.  It can proceed it.  But as listed here, the phases do seem to follow a logical progression.

“Unfreezing”

And logically, the next phase is “unfreezing.”  As the term indicates, the purpose here is to bring that aspect of the status quo under question among the staff members.  The assumption here is that a problem has been identified and, as part of this unfreezing, those conditions that are deemed responsible, in part or in whole, are also identified.  In other words, a target is determined and those physical or social factors that allow it, become the subjects of the change effort. 

Again, specificity is helpful; the aim should be some specific condition or relationship within the school’s operation.  Broad or philosophic qualities should be accounted for, but not the verbalized subject of what needs to be changed.  For example, low math scores could be an ultimate target, but not how the faculty uses modern thinking in math education.  The first is the ultimate aim of the change effort, the second might be, if relevant, an intermediate goal.  And never should a fellow colleague be the target, his/her behavior perhaps, but not the person.

Unfreezing supposes that beyond identification, an initial remedy is devised.  Now this might be initially vague and be subject to further development, e.g., in negotiating, a subsequent phase, but at this juncture, serious developmental thinking and planning should be done.  For example, by this point, if not before, the principal should be in on the planning which presupposes some level of support by him/her for what the cadre is working to accomplish.

In turn, that conversation, which includes the principal or his/her representative, is an important one since it will determine to a large measure the parameters of any change effort.  It should also indicate that what is being considered is within the legal limits of what a school can do.  Here, a concern is:  does any proposed change fall within the state’s curricular standards?  Those standards are usually written in broad language – allowing quite a bit of leeway – but one can still think of proposals that go beyond its vague limits.

The next posting will continue reviewing these phases.  Some of these phases have to do with the potential change landscape and a couple of them will have to do with interpersonal dynamics.  The phases highlighted in the next posting will be rule-making and information gathering.

---

[1] Effectiveness is defined in terms of student conduct and measures it by the levels students of the school: demonstrate learning curricular content; demonstrate learning skills in acquiring relevant knowledge associated with curricular content; demonstrate dispositional outlook supportive of being a productive member of the student body; perform their student roles in a civil manner; and follow, in a collaborative fashion, those behaviors that abide by the reasonable policies of the school and school system.

[2] This picks up on George Lakoff’s distinction between strict father morality analogy and nurturing-parent morality analogy.  See George Lakoff, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2002) AND posting, “A Non-Rod Sparing Zone,” December 8, 2017.  This is not to say that change agents need to be liberals, but they do need to be empathetic and accommodating while avoiding judgmental characteristics.

[3] Actually, any morality bias should be toward a partnership view or analogy.  Uses of family images or analogies are a bit counterproductive – fellow staff members are not family members, but they are partners in the sense they share common interests in the school doing well.  After all, a federated approach is one that attempts to have staff members federate themselves one to another.  The applicable analogy is one of partnership.

THE POTENTIAL CHANGE LANDSCAPE

This blog, of late, has again taken up the topic of change.  This fits in the overall goal of the blog, promoting federation theory as the guiding construct for civics education and its adoption that calls for change.  That would be organizational change at the school site.  In addressing this topic, the blog has reviewed the first of a three-dimensional approach to change, the structural foundation of schools and school districts.

          The blog has also provided a list of standards by which to determine whether a school needs to change its curriculum.[1]  Unfortunately, reported performance levels of American schools indicate deficiencies relative to these standards exist.  Once deficiencies are identified, analyzed (either quantitatively or qualitatively), described, and explained, a change agent is ready deal with the social (as opposed to the structural) landscape in which potential change will occur. 

This is usually the school site.  If the problem(s) is of sufficient seriousness to justify a transformative change, then the change agent can begin visualizing the school site as a landscape full of obstacles.  This judgement is not stated in an excessively negative sense.  After all, that site is where fellow employees/colleagues work and spend a great deal of time.  It is where a lot of personal conversations – shared confidences – take place. 

The image is not of one putting on battle fatigues, but, in terms of accomplishing meaningful change, it is one of which where many obstacles will exist.  Why?  Well, as alluded to earlier in this blog, what exists, exists for a reason.  People grow use to or benefit from how things are done.  They might not see or understand how what is done or exists contributes to any problems or even if problems exist.  Or they might have rationalized the problems away – “yes, they exist, but there is nothing that can be done.”

          Of course, a change agent believes that there are problems, that something can be done to solve or alleviate the problems, and that the resources – including the personnel – are present so that a change effort is worth initiating.  He/she doesn’t assume success in any change effort but does believe a chance for it is there – a chance big enough to exert the effort.

          For a more comprehensive description of how a landscape can be challenging or how a change agent should view such a landscape, the reader is referred to the posting, “In This Place,” November 17, 2015.  There, the text identifies a quote by the sociologist, Philip Selznick, and his warning that there are times when a coercive approach is warranted.  But he further warns that such an approach is too readily employed – often when it is not warranted. 

To institute meaningful, lasting change, one needs to change values and attitudes – i.e., to institute transformative change.  That is difficult to do, and attempts will face obstacles.  It is harder still if one adopts a coercive strategy.  This account offers a consideration:  it is in an either/or form regarding how the change landscape is characterized; this option reflects a source from which obstacles emanate.

That is, is the landscape an arena or a square; is it more akin to a boxing arena or a public square?  Of course, this is not an either/or choice, it reflects degrees in the political dispositions among the staff members in a school.  The first image is one of conflict and the second of consensus.

So, the question or obstacle is how much the social environment is one in which subjects are competitive, at odds, and/or contentious.  These are considered problematic and the more it can be described as such, the more it is an arena; the less so, the more it is a square. 

          An arena is enhanced by ego challenging interactions, coveting attitudes and behaviors, competitive approaches, vertical power relations, formal roles, structured processes, strange physical and social surroundings, and definite expectations.  A square is enhanced by ego accommodating interactions, soliciting attitudes and behaviors, collaborative efforts, horizontal power relations, informal roles, spontaneous processes, familiar physical and social surroundings, and open-minded expectations. 

Transformative change and a federated change approach ultimately relies on “square” qualities and their related beliefs.  A change agent, therefore, is helped in any subsequent activities to identify staff members who are prone to be “square” actors, identify and develop ways to deal with “arena” staff members, thinking of ways of advancing those square-enhancing qualities such as collaboration, and convincing administration members to think in “horizontal” ways. 

A self-appointed change agent will find these aims as challenging, but it is a good way to determine if the landscape is sufficiently apt to becoming federated and, in turn, how open it is to transformative change.  These “square” qualities are so important, that if the change agent feels there is not enough of it among the faculty, increasing it would be one of the first steps toward transformative change. 

And to do that, a constant communication strategy should disseminate the evidence of how and, if known, why the deficiencies in the school exist.  Honest communication does not only communicate the deficiencies, it also says that the recipient of the information is part of the solution – a “square” messaging.  This is but one way a more “square-ness” disposition is encouraged.

This should be done, as much as possible, in a professional manner; avoid threatening language; and not, at that point, argue for a specific change agenda or policy.  Instead, the message should be:  “there’s trouble right here in River City Elementary/Middle/High School.”[2]  And to do so, solid evidence – like test scores, testimonials from teachers or parents, and/or related statistics – is needed. 

It is felt that if a preachy message is also needed to be communicated to the faculty and/or to the administration, it should be that the school exists to meet these identified standards.  Short of that, the school is not meeting its communal responsibilities.  It is, in effect, shortchanging the taxpayers of the district and that should not be sustained. 

Oh, by the way, not only is one interested in whether the standards are met, but whether the measures used in judging whether they are met – measures of student performance – accurately do so.  If not, voila, one has the initial, specific problem to be addressed.  Evaluation of school performance, as reflected by student performance – is something districts and states have become more aware of in recent decades and there is professional literature regarding this concern.[3]

---

[1] Effectiveness is defined in terms of student conduct and measures it by the levels students of the school: demonstrate learning curricular content; demonstrate learning skills in acquiring relevant knowledge associated with curricular content; demonstrate dispositional outlook supportive of being a productive member of the student body; perform their student roles in a civil manner; and follow, in a collaborative fashion, those behaviors that abide by the reasonable policies of the school and school system.

[2] Adopted from the musical/film, The Music Man.  Meredith Wilson and Franklin Lacey (playrights), The Music Man (Broadway, 1957).

[3] In Florida, for example, schools are given an overall grade reflecting how well their students do on state tests.  Some argue that these evaluations are too much based on testing and does not give a sufficiently broader view.  That controversy is a topic for another book, but it is a question that a staff can ask, debate, and ameliorate by instituting appropriate policies within a school, a school district, or at the state level.