Schools: A Living System
Traditionally, schools are seen as linear systems. In linear systems, there is a direct connection between action and effect. Because of this thinking, development efforts echoed this belief on the organization of the system. Schools are better seen as nonlinear, living systems, where the complex and the simple are deeply intertwined. As Garmston and Wellman (2009) state, "In nonlinear systems, the parts do not add up to the same sum each time they are combined" (p. 8). History plays a large role in this thinking as schools originated during the industrial revolution. This factory line and product assembly is observed in all parts of traditional schools. From the bell ringing and moving from one station to the next, students become a fully assembled human being, thanks to the factory worker, teacher. This thinking does not benefit the staff or the students. Garmston and Wellman (2009) continue their reasoning of schools as nonlinear systems: "Fresh combinations result in different outcomes...every year turns out differently as the pedagogical mix blends with a new crop of students" (p. 8). A teacher could do the exact same activity in the exact same way in the exact same timeframe and have completely different results. Leaders and the staff must spark the movement away from viewing schools as linear systems.
Garmston and Wellman (2009) 5 Underlying Principles:
Garmston and Wellman (2009) 5 Underlying Principles:
- More data do not lead to better predictions
- Everything influences everything else
- Tiny events create major disturbances
- You don't have to touch everyone in the system to make a difference
- Both things and energy matter
An Adaptive School
Clearly articulated theories of learning, composing data-based mission statements, and professional learning are a must for any organization to undergo a lasting improvement. If the articulation is lacking in complexity or is merely touched upon during randomly designated professional development days, then the changes will not take hold. The school is forced to adapt to its surroundings, as is the case in most traditional institutions. Garmston and Wellman (2009) describe adapted schools: "...adapted, which means to have evolved through specialization to fit specific conditions" (p. 5). Adapted schools are constantly working under stressful situations to constantly keep up with the changing environment around them. The adapted school is not ideal and usually does not produce enough energy to maintain transformations.
Unlike adapted schools, adaptive schools are ideal and continually re-energize the organization to continue its metamorphosis. As Garmston and Wellman (2009) state, "...adaptive means to change form in concert with clarifying identity" (p. 5). There is a unity between the environment around the school changing and the simultaneous changing of the rules, norms, curriculum, structures, etc. of the school itself. Garmston and Wellman articulate the essential idea behind being adaptive: "This usually means letting go of existing forms and continually clarifying the core identity of the enterprise" (p.6). Moving in this direction can be complex and unnerving, but it is a must for our educational system: "Designed in another time for the purpose of that time, the typical high school often shows a remarkable lack of flexibility, with staff members clinging to tightly defined niches within increasingly fragile specialties" (p. 7).
Unlike adapted schools, adaptive schools are ideal and continually re-energize the organization to continue its metamorphosis. As Garmston and Wellman (2009) state, "...adaptive means to change form in concert with clarifying identity" (p. 5). There is a unity between the environment around the school changing and the simultaneous changing of the rules, norms, curriculum, structures, etc. of the school itself. Garmston and Wellman articulate the essential idea behind being adaptive: "This usually means letting go of existing forms and continually clarifying the core identity of the enterprise" (p.6). Moving in this direction can be complex and unnerving, but it is a must for our educational system: "Designed in another time for the purpose of that time, the typical high school often shows a remarkable lack of flexibility, with staff members clinging to tightly defined niches within increasingly fragile specialties" (p. 7).
Things and Energy
Thing thinking works as a checklist in our mind. For teachers and instructional leaders, we see the day as a prioritized checklist of doing things. We make sure the attendance is taken, the papers are distributed, and the students are reading. Garmston and Wellman open The Adaptive School discussing how the revolution of quantum mechanics blurred lines between matter (thing thinking) and energy. They (2009) discuss this perspective: "Margaret Wheatley (1992) observes that the quality of human relationships creates the energy source that produces all organizational work. This is the energy with which organizational members commit, persevere, and relate" (p. 5). As leaders also nurture relationships, the energy of the overall organization will change, which can lead to structural changes at the organizational level. Schools will and should look differently. Garmston and Wellman (2009) continue, "...the real work of changing schools lies in changing norms, knowledge, and skills (energy) at the individual and organizational levels before we attempt to change the structure of schools (things)" (p. 5).
Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2009). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.