The problem with incentives

Today's solution can be the basis of tomorrow’s problem. 

The Australian Prime Minister has proposed substantial incentive payments to up to 1000 schools which show improvements in student attendance and results (more...). It is generally a good thing to recognise and reward achievements and the intended outcomes of the proposal are highly desirable.

However this is not simply a system-wide recognition and reward arrangement. Offering incentives with a limited number of possible recipients turns it into a competition.  Competition can certainly promote improved performance, as in sport.

At the same time, there can be unintended side effects. In any competition there will be winners and losers. Incentives work best for those who are likely to be rewarded and they tend to become less effective over time unless the rewards are increased. Very few of us commit ourselves to winning Olympic medals despite the ever increasing value of doing so.

To be competitive we need to minimise the factors that reduce our likelihood of success while maximising the factors that increase the likelihood of our success.  Other than luck, our likelihood of success is associated with factors over which we have some control.

The Prime Minister has promised that national criteria will be developed through consultative processes and measurement of performance will be overseen by an independent body. Fairness is important in any incentive scheme. But is this actually possible?

Student attendance and results are closely associated with many factors well outside the school's control including the natural abilities of individual students; family well-being; levels of parental education; and the families’ access to social capital, community resources and so on. But will the selection processes be able to measure the school’s and teacher’s contributions separately from these non-school factors?

If not, it would make sense for schools and teachers to generally avoid students who have additional needs for support and whose families are in distress; whose parents have low levels of education; and who live in communities with limited services, facilities and social capital.

Conversely it would make sense for schools to attract and retain students who have minimal need for additional individual support; whose families are in great shape; whose parents have high levels education and  easy access to material and social resources and services.

The unintended side effect is that the most successful school response to the Prime Minister's proposal could well be to avoid the very students the proposal is intended to assist.

Moving forward and gaining momentum

Enormous efforts are going into improving schools, schooling and education but most are disruptive, counter-productive and undermine stakeholder commitments to future initiatives.

Here are some basic (but counter-intuitive and very challenging) ideas about the way forward for schools, schooling and education:

• Education is NOT a "process/production" activity and cannot be treated, nor modelled as such - A VERY BIG PROBLEM!!!  more...
• Reality is complex, messy, uncertain and unpredictable - Forrest Gump was right: "Sh-t happens!!"
• Certain people may be in charge at various levels, but it is not possible for them to be in control
• Hierarchical systems tend to protect senior officers from the inconvenience of knowing about the current reality
• Knowledge, not plans and policies, make people responsible (and knowledge can help make people, response-able)
• People want to do a good job (unless they are totally discouraged)
• We need to reduce the need for counter-measures (re-work) and move directly towards solutions by nurturing the emergence of what is desirable more...
• We need much less change but much more improvement
• Organisations (including schools) are constructed in the everyday conversations of those involved.
• Such situations require a set of agreed and easily retained rules of engagement/interaction (everyone's job description*), e.g.,
  
  
  • Know what is happening
  • Work with others to improve what is happening
  • Do your work in a way that makes it easier for the next person to do well
• When making changes/improvements always start by making things easier. 
• As a result of the above, everyone will do more and to do it better!!

That is, ongoing improvement of schools, schooling and education can be achieved quickly and economically  

• by working together and
• by adopting a strategy of  Easier First .

[*This 'job description' was used at RPS for the last several years of my time there and was clearly proven to work. In a school of 670 students, I taught 0.4 FTE, the APs taught 0.8 and everyone else taught full-time.  That is, 97% of all the available teacher time was spent working directly with students.]

Schools in the Age of Measurement

The Impact of the Age of Measurement
The Telegraph recently reported:  'Age of Measurement' harming schools, says Eton head (here).  Tony Little, the headmaster of Eton has suggested that Boarding schools have entered an 'Age of Measurement' where only results are valuable.

•  "...the current inspection regime for .... schools is flawed - because it splits schools into parts, judging them separately for different areas of their work...  I see teachers becoming averse to risk, naturally concerned about their responsibilities should they offer to take a school trip in their own time, feeling that they are judged most tellingly on the grades their students achieve in public exams, becoming more adept with the jargon and canny about 'delivering the outcome'."

Expensive Bureaucracy 
 Another report of the same address (here) had the headline Schools 'harassed' by pushy parents, says Eton head. Tony Little's comments included the observation that

• ... independent school fees had been driven up in recent years because of the “lethal cocktail” of maintaining facilities, meeting competitive staff pay rates and complying with    “constant waves of expensive bureaucracy”.(my emphasis)

In the case of public education the "constant waves of expensive bureaucracy" are paid for by taking teachers away from teaching. That is, in our system the cost is paid by those who can least afford it: those students who need the most teaching.

Teaching is the core business of schools. When I was Principal at Riverside Primary (enrolment  670), I taught 0.4FTE, APs taught 0.8 and everyone else taught full-time. I believe that this level of staff engagement in teaching would be impossible today because of the huge increase in demands made on schools by the Department of Education, and State and Federal Governments.

Given that Eton is experiencing the those things reported by Tasmanian schools one might conclude that this is a worldwide phenomenon and we are, indeed in the 'Age of Measurement'

School Improvement - a conversation

Earlier this year the University of Tasmania advertised several 'New Stars' positions in various disciplines, including one for the Faculty of Education specialising in School Improvement. They couldn't recruit anyone suitable in School Improvement. This would indicate that the lack of expertise in School Improvement may be a much wider issue.

Goldratt has identified a change management strategy based on three simple questions

1. What to change?
   
2. What to change to?
   
3. How to cause the change? That is, "By what method?"

Most people are confident about their expertise in relation to Questions 1 & 2, especially in relation to specific changes. The world is full of experts, who know what's wrong and how things should be.

But a gaping void exists in relation to Question 3. This usually leads to attempts to drive school improvement by

• focusing on outcomes (MySchool, Tasmania Tomorrow...) and/or
  
• mandating changes to teacher practices (often based on notions of 'best practice')

 [The continual search for best practices is based on the largely unexamined assumption that 'best practices' are universally best, and are also readily transferrable] 

These approaches tend to make school improvement initiatives

• disparate
  
• episodic
  
• inefficient
  
• ineffective ('after the horse has bolted')
  
• lacking in overall coherence
  
• often mutually disruptive: most schools struggle to meet the demands placed upon them

On the other hand, there are a whole range of proven improvement strategies available. However, they seem have little or no traction in the field of Education. Tasmania is ideally situated  to redress this situation.

 Change management strategies worth considering include

• Action Learning* (Revans,...)
  
• Activity Theory (Engestrom,...)
  
• Complexity Theory (Snowden,...)
  
• Theory of Constraints (Goldratt)
  
• Continuous improvement (Deming,...)
  
• Sense Making (Weick, Snowden)
  
• Solution Focus (McKergow,...)
  
• Communities of Practice (Wenger,...)
• Knowledge Management (combines with complexity theory and sense making)
  
• Key Factors (Webb)
  
• and even SWPBS (Sugai,...) - as per my recent email
  
• ...

The latter two strategies are currently understood to be specific to particular school contexts: the implementation of ICT and student behaviour respectively. In fact,  both have the potential to be generalised in such a way that they become applicable  and useful in improving most aspects of the life and work of the school.

Interestingly, all of these strategies are constructivist and they boil down to being Action Learning in one form or another - not really surprising!!

Thus, there is an urgent and important conversation to be had around the question

• School Improvement -  by what method?

 And the conversation needs to be fostered at all levels and with all stakeholders.

A Positive Future for Tasmanian Schools

Deming led the redevelopment of Japan after WWII and was a founding contributor to the quality movement. When people made great claims about about their future achievements ("No child will live in poverty", "No Child Left behind"...) he would ask the question: "By what method?".

He was not asking "What are you going to do?". He was asking "How are those involved going to achieve this desirable thing?".

One way to achieve a positive future for Tasmanian schools would be to adopt, adapt, appropriate and extend the main principles of SWPBS (School-wide Positive Behaviour Support) to address the various aspects of the life and work of the school; not just student behaviour.

What would this mean?  It means that is areas such as teaching & learning, behaviour, organisations, community & families... Schools would be purposeful, capable and successful.  

That is, in a positive future Tasmanian Schools would

• be focused on success and well-being for all (staff, students, families, communities...) in a range of contexts
• have clear widely shared hopes and expectations for all 
• know what was happening 
• have data to confirm or challenge their knowledge of what was happening
• use this data to inform their decision making and responses
• continually work towards achieving and improving outcomes consistent with their hopes and expectations
• adopt and/or develop evidence-based practices that enable the outcomes to be achieved
• apply these practices to provide a continuum of support according to the needs of those involved
• develop systems that enable data to be acquired, processed and used in a timely manner,and for practices to be effective, efficient....
• focus on improvement, rather than change, and thus
• become inclusive (and restorative) communities in their own right

Using SWPBS as a 'platform' would be strategic in that, to a greater or less extent, most schools have some knowledge and experience of PBS.  For those schools that already implementing SWPBS well, the extension would be simple and natural. And it would further strengthen the good work they are already doing in SWPBS.

The Immediate Future of Tasmanian Education

Understanding the current window of opportunity
We are in a period of rapid transition and the critical changes are not being chosen, managed or designed or even predictable - they are simply emerging. So an understanding of complexity will prove to be critical.

The old idea of a system as Input-Process-Output is very much alive but not at all well.  That is, this notion is working less and less well as our world becomes more complex, interactive, uncertain and unpredictable.

Many aspects of our daily experience have elements that are at the 'edge of chaos'. While some people may be in charge, no-one is really in control of literacy, numeracy, retention, behaviour... and other critical matters. Still we have to respond and how we respond to these conditions determines our ongoing success or otherwise.

Some key emerging concepts to consider

• A system is network of people, tools, policies, facilities, arrangements... that interact with some coherence

• And what is basic (literacy, numeracy...) is often not simple.

• In complex situations consistency is more meaningful that uniformity

• Knowledge, actions and arrangements are continually constructed and reconstructed in everyday interactions (mainly conversations)

So many of the Tasmania education initiatives of recent years have proven to be disruptive and counter productive. While the thinking behind the individual initiatives has often be sound, their effect has been disruptive to other initiatives and thus reduced the overall coherence within the system. Consider the following examples:

• SARIS fatally disrupted the ELs and all local reporting arrangements - the ELs were no longer coherent in the light of the SARIS
• By defining the outputs (in effect, selecting the inputs) SARIS has also made significant curriculum development and implementation since the ELs virtually impossible
• The national curriculum is very likely continue this process
• The MySchool website is having similar effects
• And many experienced Tasmania Tomorrow as very much less than coherent, especially in terms of its stated aims (retention) and the basis for its structure.

It is interesting that SARIS, the National Curriculum, MySchool... are all strategies based on Input-Process-Output assumptions and they also assume that that uniformity is possible and meaningful.

Increasingly leadership will require very different thinking, starting now. The "edge of chaos" phenomenon is not always bad. It can represent a condition in which significant system change can be achieved very easily and quickly. Thus, a new government and new Minister represent a window of opportunity that will be open for at least the immediate future. The responses made may keep the window open or slam it shut. 

Robustness or Resilience (PBS for example)?

In developing school-wide systems, it may be important to be explicit about whether you are aiming to make the school's behaviour management systems

• robust - unlikely to fail in any of its parts so that problematic behaviour is prevented from occurring
• resilient - able to recover quickly and easily from failures (life's ups and downs), even the big ones

Follow the link to a posting on this issue from my favourite blogger (Dave Snowden).

Sometimes, when you are introducing PBS, staff may unwittingly assume that the intention is to make the school's behaviour management robust so that behaviour problems will disappear. Of course, this is unlikely to happen and some staff will then naturally think that "PBS doesn't work".

It is more realistic to aim for school-wide systems that are resilient. This will achieve three major outcomes:

• school-wide systems will cope better with the ups and downs involved
• recovery by the school, staff and students will be easier and faster, e.g., restorative practices, and, as a result,
• behaviour problems will reduce (even if they don't disappear altogether)

And this reminds me of the three measure of progress in relation to a problematic student behaviour:

1. Are the incidents getting fewer, that is,further apart? - "Yes" indicates the students behaviour is more 'robust' and that the student has more resilience
2. Is the recovery time getting shorter? "Yes" indicates the student has improved resilience
3. Are the the incidents getting less severe? "Yes" indicates improvements in both robustness of behaviour and personal resilience)

Problematic behaviour tends to improve in the above order. A "Yes" answer to any of the above questions indicates progress , even if, the last thing that improves is the actual incidents themselves. When a serious incident occurs it does not always mean that "We are back to square one!!!" or "All our work has been in vain!!"

It may be useful to get any staff and the student involved to answer these questions for themselves. In this way you are helping them to building resilience.

League tables, their use and limitations

What are the benefits of school league tables? And for whom? People need information for making decisions. Schools want to do well, and parents want to send their children to good schools. But are league tables likely to be helpful?

The tables do not contain measures of school performance. They contain measures of student performance. No one would deny that there is a link between school performance and student performance. However, it is just not that simple.

Only part of any student’s performance is attributable to the school. Other contributing factors include

• the student’s natural ability
• the student's effort,
• his or her family,
• his or her friends
• and the wider community.

It is not possible to isolate and measure the school contribution separately from all these other contributions. Even in the twenty-first century it still ‘takes a village to raise a child’. If the tables report anything then it is the success of the combined contributions . As a result, the tables frequently do serious injustice to many schools, particularly in high needs areas – those areas where families and communities have significantly less to contribute.

The data in league tables are something less than what the labels suggest. For example, the literacy and numeracy data is derived from narrow measures of certain aspects of the students’ actual literacy and numeracy. But even this can be useful. Such measures can act as a ‘flag’ and draw attention to matters that might warrant further consideration, especially by those, such as the school, who can put the data into context and make improvements.

Public reporting pressures schools into giving undue attention to certain aspects of the curriculum at the cost of other very worthwhile learning. That is, pressure to improve the school’s contribution can distort and narrow a sound curriculum and thus be counter productive.

Finally, the question of parent choice. I support the right of parents to choose but choice comes at a cost. Schools that are low on a league table are likely to suffer most. Hard working and very capable staff may feel undervalued and unfairly treated. Parents who cannot move their children to a higher school may feel a little guilty and disappointed with the school. Parents who do move their children usually take with them valuable resources. League tables can promote the movement of social capital away from where it is needed most, towards where there is already a plentiful supply.

Fortunately, the vast majority of schools and families quickly realise the limitations of league table information and adjust their judgements and decisions accordingly. Most schools and communities survive the immediate collateral damage that occurs. Curricula narrow and distort. The life and work of schools go on.

What is not negotiable in a school?

Are there any things that are not negotiable in a school?

For me, there are three things that are not negotiable,

• No harm to self, others or property (aka care, safety,...)
• No disruption to work or safe play (consideration, learning...)
• No offense to other members of the school community* (courtesy, respect, friendship....)

(* Includes neighbours and visitors)

In fact, these are the three school rules. These rules are derived directly from the rules that apply in our society - the school does not invent these. And they related directly to the two key outcomes

• success
• well-being

There are several supportive ways in which we interact with students. The main ways include

• coaching
• negotiating
• mediating
• befriending
• advocating
• ...

In fact when it comes to the not negotiable three school rules, the bottom line is that at times we will just need to be assertive. Of course there are children who, based on their other life experiences, expect all things to be negotiable. And others who dismiss all support other than befriending... And yet others who simply don't understand. But these things don't change the rules.

It is best to achieve as much s possible on the basis of our working relationships with students (coach, friend, mediator...). However, when our working relationships break down, we may need to be assertive and our right to do so comes from our role: Principal, Class Teacher, Duty Teacher, Teacher Aide...

Making the role explicit while being assertive can help reduce the student's confusion.

__,_._,___

Improve the system to offset spending reductions

The global financial crisis is forcing governments world-wide to reduce spending as an alleged strategy for 'cost saving'. An earlier blog showed that this is a false claim. Reducing spending without system improvement is simply cost shifting. And the shift tends to be towards those who can least afford the cost.

Cost savings are achieved by improving the system so that

• the system is more efficient = uses less resources
• the system is more effective and hence, there is less rework = uses less resources

There are numerous valid strategies for improving the system using small changes

• Start with Easier First - releases resources quickly and easily (minimum change)
• Then Reduce rework - reduces resources consumed and hence releases resources
• Build in Continuous improvement - releases resources through improved processes
• And always Focus on solutions - doing more of what works, and less of what doesn't work, rather than developing counter measures (rework = uses more resources)
• Big improvements from small changes are achieved by addressing the constraints - only introduce changes (differences) that make a difference.

The latter strategy does not assume that the way to maintain outcomes (e.g. student learning) is to increase the focus on what appear to be core activities (e.g., classroom teaching). Making such an assumption usually leads to cutting resources for things other than classroom teaching.

Reducing the cost of poor student behaviour

Each year, inappropriate student behaviour costs the Tasmanian education system tens of millions of dollars worth of staff time, energy and commitment that would otherwise be applied to the core task of educating students. In many cases poor behaviour is the major constraint on achieving and maintaining learning outcomes.

The irony is that, in order to maintain resourcing for core activities (especially staff:student ratios in classrooms) the system is cutting 'non-core' activities such as support services, professional development, school development and the provision of tools. There is little regard to the cost effectiveness of such decisions.

The development of a system-wide student support information system (estimated cost $300 000) was abandoned as a very early 'cost saving' despite the fact that it would have returned many times its cost in actual savings, and helped to improve key outcomes and core activities. These improvements would have allowed some slight reduction in resourcing for core activities across the entire system which in turn would have resulted in actual cost savings in cold hard cash.

And this is just one example.

Challenges as opportunities

The global finacial crisis is presenting challenges across the board. Many of these challenges are urgent as resources are lost, or simply not available. If financial resources are inadequate the first response is to stop spending in an attempt to 'reduce costs'. But this strategy does not actually reduce costs... it just changes who pays the cost, and usually, this becomes those who can least afford it (The Myth of cost saving by cutting spending).

The only way to reduce costs is to improve the system - to reduce waste starting with rework. The best way to do that is to ensure that

• Goals and purposes are clear and shared
• Commitments are feasible (and/or safe)
• Processes are efficient and effective (reduce rework - releases resources)
• Improvement is continuous
• Everyone is a contributor and beneficiary
• The initial focus is on making things easier first (releases resources)

NOTE: the above list are core tasks - they do not really represent anything new. The small change is to actually attend to these matters on a moment by moment basis and to integrate them into everyday practice. They are not (and cannot be) separate from doing what needs to be done.

Improving the system is a key response to the urgent challenges we face. But the challenegs also represent an opportunity is (at least two ways):

• The harsh reality we face forces up to reflect on what really matters - we have an opportunity to ensure that our goals and purposes are clear and shared
• The unfamiliar difficulties we face brings our systems to the 'edge of chaos' under which conditions the system may be vulnerable but it is also easier to change.

IKEA as role model

Recently, members of a staff group expressed some of the challenges they faced in carrying out their work. Their concerns and the possible improvement strategies that they had identified were summarised by a third party in an email to the Principal. The email was intended to be a starting point for discussing the situation.

In response the Principal provided the members of the team with a comprehensive email containing several key documents and advice and instructions. The Principal's email was rather like something from IKEA. It was presented as having all the required bits and pieces (information) and a set of matching instructions.

While some specific aspects of schools can be improved using the IKEA method, the 'constructivist' notions of IKEA are fundamentally different from those involved in constructing the knowledge, arrangements and actions required to make a school effective.

For example, the construction of an IKEA item is a generally a once-only task and most customers would produce very similar items. In addition, the item is largely independent of the context in which it is constructed and the use to which it will be put. Also, the construction of one IKEA item does not impact on the effectiveness of other IKEA items even if they are same room.

In contrast, the aspects of a school are in a continual state of flux... the knowledge, arrangements and actions need to be continually constructed and reconstructed. And no one have the full set of instructions. In this information age, information and instructions are not enough. IKEA is great at furniture but it is not a suitable role for dealing with the complexity of schools.

Dealing with complexity requires on-going conversations in which experiences and insights are shared, and knowledge, arrangements and actions are co-constructed. Rather than trying to produce fail-safe kits (a la IKEA) it is wiser to undertake small safe-fail experiments to find out what works and what doesn't and then respond to the results: nurture and extend what is useful and curtail what is unhelpful. And the time, incorporating the best as part of 'our story'.

Misconceptions of change management

Two major themes permeate much of change management. The heroic enlightenment of managers and leaders as the proponents of change and the undermining resistance of staff as the opponents of change.

Firstly, management and leadership are two different and disparate functions. Management is largely based on authority associated with a delegated role whereas leadership is usually based on (working) relationships. Few managers are actually leaders because of the likely conflict between role and relationship. Similarly few leaders are actually managers.

So how do those in charge (those with authority) change organisations? The most common approach is to produce a plan and communicate it to staff. The 'short-cut' version of this approach is simply to use direct force, often in the form of changed policies and structures.

Sometimes this approach seems to work, at least in part. Of course, this implies that the plan was, to a certain extent, well thought out and comprehensive, and hence. The manager is, usually to a greater extent, a heroic and insightful leader.

Closer examination will usually show that the outcome differs significantly from the plan. What has emerged is different from what was initially proposed, due to unforeseen circumstances or the resistance of those who are required to implement the plan.

In reality, it is not possible to predict what will emerge from a change initiative. Afterwards, the difference between intensions and outcomes are often readily explainable through 'retrospective coherence'.

Top down approaches

One of my sad experiences this year came from a conversation I overheard in a school. A parent asked about a minor aspect of the school's future arrangements. The senior staff member replied: "We don't know ... the Department hasn't decided yet."

This informal exchange illustrated the extent to which the Tasmanian education system has become a top down system. In earlier times, such minor matters would have been decided by the school as a matter of course.

Few Tasmanian schools are the purposeful creative places they used to be before the system became the client. This latter development is the inevitable outcome of the recent unchallenged top down approaches.

Despite their rhetoric, top down systems do not support leaders at all well. They may talk 'leadership' but the system constraints reduce leadership to management (implementing the system's decisions) and compliance. But there are still leaders in spite of this. And the leaders are paying a very high price in those schools that are trying so hard to be purposeful and creative. Many school leaders are quite exhausted by the competing demands of the Department and governments and the needs of the staff and students. An indicator and outcome is the low and shrinking number of applicants for Principals' positions.

And then there is the paradoxical phenomenon in top down systems that

• The less well top down interventions work, the more likely they will be applied and increased.

The common flaw in top down approaches is that they treat most things as simple when in reality most are not. See It is not personal and it is not simple below.

Changing complex systems

It is best to think in terms of aspects of systems rather than systems per se. Indeed systems may not really exist but under certain conditions it is reasonable to think of the situation as being or containing 'systems'. That is, while systems thinking may be valid, systems may really be products of our thinking. That is, we can treat certain aspects of the situation 'as if' they were systems.

In the Cynefin framework, Dave Snowden suggests five types of of 'systems' according to the relationship between cause and effect phenomena occuring in the context.

• Ordered (predictable)
• Simple - cause and effect are widely known and understood
  
• Complicated - cause and effect are knowable (with expert assistance)
  
• Unordered (unpredictable)
• Complex - retrospective coherence may be discernable
• Chaotic - no coherence
• Disordered (or perhaps undifferentiated)

In addition the framework provides guidance as to the appropriate change strategy according to the cause and effect relationships involved.

While most human activity is largely complex or chaotic there are times and places where it may be valid to respond 'as if' the situation is a complicated system or even a simple system. This is largely dependent on the consistency of human activity and interactivity.

Such consistency may emerge in complex systems from two main factors in the situation:

• attractors such as shared values, purposes.... around which activity and interactivity continue and emerge (change)
  
• boundaries such as rules and policies together with knowledge, artefacts...that constrain the activity and interactivity

Attractors and boundaries are sometimes confused or conflicting. Frequently, boundaries are used to control and to extract compliance, while attractors are used to inspire and motivate. Unfortunately, having established a (personal) image of what is to be achieved, it is common for management to see its initiatives as 'leadership' and the situation as an 'ordered system':

• either simple: "If only people would do as expected..."
• or perhaps complicated: "The experts know what needs to be done...."

The flaw in such thinking is that people cannot be simply instructed. Rather each one needs to (re)construct their knowledge, activities and arrangements in order to act 'as expected' or to do "what needs to be done". And this endeavour is enabled or constrained by attractors and boundaries both within the situation and elsewhere. They contribute to (enhance/constrain) the capacity of the system.

Thus it is wise to consider the matter of attractors and boundaries carefully in any change process. Simple attractors are potentially very powerful in fostering the emergence of new approaches and greater effectiveness and efficiency. At the same time boundaries may reveal the true purpsoes of the organisation and in so doing completely over-ride the attractors eg, the Tasmanian education's "Student at the Center" (intended attractor) has been annihilated by the Department's focus on structure, curriculum, assessment and reporting policies (actual boundaries).