Responding to problems

Things go wrong from time to time. People sometimes 'do the wrong thing' - sometimes by choice, other times by error or accident. In every case there can be value in making multilevel responses to the problem at hand.

1. Contain the problem to minimise further harm. 

2. Repair the situation (working with the parties involved if possible)

3. Learn how the problem occurred (focus on process before people)

4. Prevent (or reduce the likelihood of) the problem recurring

There is a tendency to blame the person who 'caused the problem' and/or to change the system.  Improve the system/process only if necessary. Often nothing needs to be changed. Blame is usually unproductive -  the person who 'caused the problem' often simply lacked some key insight, understanding, knowledge or skill. Work with them to bring them up to speed.

And, try to avoid the use of counter-measures such a increased control and supervision, extra requirements, needing permission, new restrictions... Counter measures are often costly to implement and difficult to maintain. 

Restorative practices are a good example of a multilevel response when someone has 'done the wrong thing'.

The school system - enabler or driver?

For more than a decade Tasmanian public education has been in a state of continuous structural and policy change. Given the disappointing outcomes this is likely to continue. Well intentioned  initiatives have been largely top-down, one-size-fits-all approaches that ultimately require the compliance of staff at all levels. That is, governments and senior officers have attempted to drive improvements from on high by providing schools and staff with the answers while failing to properly understand the questions - classic MBO (management by objectives, circa 1960s).

To be fair, most initiatives have been rational, "best practice" and/or "evidence based" meaning that the initiatives appear reasonable and have been successful elsewhere. However, initiatives have to occur in a context and each situation (student, teacher, school, family, community...) involves a different context: each with its own history, needs, hopes, culture, resources...

In engineering, "best practices" are readily transferable - cause and effect are consistent over place and time and the outcomes are predictable The same cannot be said for human endeavours such as education. Education is a complex endeavour, not subject to consistent natural laws. In complex systems similar initiatives can have very different outcomes in different places - like the weather, starting conditions (the initial context) make can a huge difference.

Schools, classes, education departments... are all complex (adaptive) systems. They are not factories that can be controlled in a mechanical way - the processes involved are not based on natural laws.  They are not changed by flicking switches and turning dials. Rather they are the sum total of the everyday interactions of their various parts  (the people, policies, rules, working relationships, resources, opportunities... and the context).  What happens emerges over time from the all interactions of the parts of the system.

Key questions
What is the purpose of our systems?  
 - We create systems in order to achieve what is desirable.

What are the underlying mechanisms involved?
- In context, the people involved continually construct (and reconstruct) their knowledge, (inter)actions, arrangements and relationships in ways that will (ideally) help them achieve of what is desirable.

What design principles might apply? 
At all levels, systems should enable the achievement of their purposes easily and well.
Systems should also incorporate their own ongoing improvement strategies.
Due diligence should be undertaken before implementing a major proposal

Implications
The implications are that top-down initiatives need to be complemented by matching responses throughout the system. To be successful initiatives need to be coherent and useful. All this sounds a bit cumbersome, so why not allow people at the top make the decisions to drive the achievement of what is desirable?

When systems try to drive detailed change they often end up requiring compliance and this is usually counter-productive and difficult to sustain. When  system requirements conflict with the immediate needs of students, schools and staff often face a dilemma. Such dilemmas are best understood as  opportunities for learning and for system improvement. If such a dilemma is resolved by requiring compliance there will be more losers than winners, especially in the longer term.

The alternative is for the system to focus on providing enablers (purposes, principles, tools...) that will nurture the emergence of what is desirable. People want to do well and to contribute - schools and their staff care about the success and well-being of their students. The system needs to be judged by the extent to which it enables all to achieve success and well-being now and it the future.

Evaluating proposals - some useful questions

All proposals are naturally about achieving a better future and are usually presented as "good ideas". Business regularly does due diligence before undertaking major projects. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for education. Before proceeding with any significant initiative it could be worth considering following

Sample Questions

1. What differences will we notice if this proposal is successful?
2. What small scale evidence supports the proposal?
3. What is necessary for the proposal to succeed?
4. What is sufficient for the proposal to succeed?
5. How does the proposal integrate with our key purposes, processes, the present culture, and other historical, current and future initiatives?
6. Where is it already happening?
7. What will be the costs of any failure?
8. Will it be safe to fail? 
9. What responses will be made to those situations where the proposal does not work? 
10. Can the proposal be easily reversed or abandoned at any stage? 
11. What is the expected cost of implementing the proposal? (Costs mat include include losses and waste in terms of finance, time, energy, expertise, disruption, deterioration, resources, expertise, social capital,….)
12. Will the outcomes be sustainable ? Will they require substantial ongoing support and maintenance?
13. Are we ready, at this time, to undertake this proposal?
14. Is there a better, cheaper, less disruptive and safer way to achieve the same outcomes?

Three Key Questions
Working through the above (or similar questions) collaboratively will enable consensus to be reached on three key questions:

1. Is it desirable (and for whom)?
2. Is it possible (and by what method)?
3. Is it feasible (and in what time frame)?

Tasmanian Education - a better future

Early next year Tasmania is likely to have a new Minister for Education. The Minister will promise a better future for Tasmanian education. If this is to be achieved, the new Minister will need to avoid the traps into which the current and recent Minsters and senior bureaucrats have fallen. So the key question is...

“By what method?” (Deming)

Core Method:

• Operate consistently on the basis of (explicit, agreed) principles (Covey,... Webb)

Some principles for consideration

     Core goals: Success & well-being for all now and in the future

Use low cost, low risk (safe-fail), potentially high return initiatives (Snowden)
Maximise improvement while minimising change 

Provide principle-based authority and responsibility - shared accountability
Address the current constraint (Goldratt)
Make things easier first

Adopt a common “job description” for all involved; staff, students, families… e.g., 

o       Know what's happening

o       Work with others to improve what is happening

o       Make it easier for the next person to do well  (Webb)

Rationale

Our knowledge, actions, arrangements, relationships and organisation emerge from (everyday) interactions (complexity theory)

"If you understand the principles... you can choose your own method" (Gaping Void)

A principle-based approach is sustainable

Consistent sharing of authority and responsibility

Sound principles are widely applicable (DoE, other schools and services...)

Sound principles change only slowly co-evolving with the context
A well understood set of principles provides coherence

Moves the focus from driving to enabling

Attracts minimal tampering and disruption

Promotes initiative and commitment

Minimises cost

- Enables and promotes local and system-wide initiatives

- Promotes action learning and continuous improvement

- Builds and attracts social capital

- Flexible and adaptive - provides basis for customisation

- Achieves consistency without requiring uniformity

- Responsive to opportunities

- More with less

It works

I know the above works - I have lived it at Riverside Primary School (1988-2000). And current technology makes the above manageable and scalable at a system level.
Big Picture schools and the Coalition of Essential Schools are other  great examples of very successful principle based  school systems

Common recent traps that can be avoided using a principle-based approach

Confusing drivers and enablers (eg, Naplan with delayed results)

Confusing plans, policies and standards with actual performance
Confusing change with improvement

Confusing additional resources with improvement

Confusing structural change with improvement

Relying on command and control management (compliance)

Ignoring the real starting point – the individual student in his/her current context

[Note: There is nothing wrong with programs, plans, policies, standards, resources... Indeed they can be very useful, if implemented in the right context using sound principles. They should not be assumed to be drivers (causal) despite their successful use elsewhere. At best, they may be useful interim enablers in some contexts.]

Keeping it simple

Our everyday lived experience is often complicated and uncertain... so how to cope?

The human brain has evolved to engage with reality on the basis of simple rules-of-thumb (heuristics) that we can readily recall, share and apply at short notice. No heuristics are universal truths but some are useful under certain conditions.

Here are a few of my favourites on Change and Improvement. These are not listed in any particular order - it depends on the situation at hand and the needs of those involved:

• Focus on solutions (rather than problems)
• Find the vital element  to be addressed in the situation and check: Whom does it serve? (The Fisher King)
• Minimise change and maximise improvement
• Make things easier easier first
• Make it easier for the next person
• Make small safe changes - ones that can be easily undone if they don't work
• Make continuous improvements, eg, Plan-Do-Study-Act but beware the dangers of tampering
• Identify and address the current constraint - this will give the best ROI
• Reduce costs (especially rework)
• Reduce variation
• ...

These and many similar heuristics could be distilled down into the following set of three (thanks to Insoo Kim Berg & Steve De Shazer):

1. Identify what works and do more of it 
2. Identify what doesn’t work, stop doing it and do something different 
3. Take some small (safe-fail) steps in the direction you want to move

In many ways heuristics are like keys - they are easy to carry and open the door to a richer set of possibilities.

Restorative Conversations

Have you noticed that most Restorative Practices are just conversations? Well structured, open, honest, disciplined, respectful, insightful, and usually quite productive conversations?

Restorative conversations can be
- incidental within other conversations
- informal
- gatherings (e.g. circles) or
- formal restorative meetings or conferences

Restorative conversations involve statements and questions, in particular,
- affective statements
- restorative questions

As a result of the careful way in which they are structured, restorative conversations reveal and share insights that provide a basis for
- knowing what has happened
- understanding the impacts of what has happened
- sharing responsibility for what has happened, and
- repairing any harm done
- improving relationships

All conversations are social interactions. Restorative conversations are examples of the highest order of social interaction: “working with”.  Consequently, the outcomes of restorative conversations are usually sustainable and significantly better than a zero-sum result. And this helps to explain why restorative practices have been so successful in improving schools and other organisations - restorative conversations work!!

Notes:
(1) Working with others involves both high levels of challenge and high levels of support.
This and contrasts with
- “neglecting” = ignoring or abandoning: low challenge/low support,
- “working on” = controlling and punitive: high control/low support
- “working for” = rescuing: low challenge/high support
(2) Most controlling and punitive activity is based on the notion that, at best, the situation has a zero-sum outcome!!

Culture, conversations and school change

Schools are under continual pressure to improve. Most major initiatives come as proposed changes.

Most school changes involve a culture shift for staff members. Some staff members have practices that are already close to the intended changes. Other staff members will be committed to practices that are not all that consistent with the intended practices. When our culture changes so do our identities, so this is not a trivial matter for many of those involved. But where does a school’s culture come from, and how might it be changed? 

Culture is basically “the way we do things around here”. And the way we do things is continually constructed and reconstructed in the (everyday) conversations of those involved. In formal and informal conversations we continually construct (and reconstruct) our knowledge, actions, and arrangements. In the process we also construct and reconstruct our identities and relationships

Each conversation occurs in a context that involves the histories, hopes, commitments, identities, relationships and interests of those involved (staff, students, families, the school, its communities…) as well as policies, regulations and resources...

That is, the school's culture continues and/or changes (emerges) from the interactions of its people, hence changing the culture means changing the conversations.

In schools, ‘conversations’ occur at a range of levels including individual reflections, chats, meetings, workshops, publications, reporting... Conversations are central to formal processes such as policy implementation, scheduling, delegation, coordinating, staff selection, performance management and staff support (coaching, mentoring and debriefing)… 

Somewhat paradoxically, while the school’s structure, and organisation, and associated staff roles co-evolve with the conversations they also enable and/or constrain the conversations that occur.

Conversations and leadership

From the above, school leadership is largely a matter of engaging in everyday conversations by affirming what is working, and shaping and reframing key concepts, purposes (values), relationships, observations, evaluations, possibilities, processes… all strengthened by the stories told about the school and its people.

Responsibility for school leadership frequently resides with principals and senior staff and it is fairly natural for staff to attend to the contributions that senior staff members make to the ongoing conversations within the school.

Consequently effective school leadership requires three things:

1. A sound knowledge of the how the proposed changes can become part of the life, work and culture of the school
2. Extensive participation in the life and work of the school, and
3. The capacity to engage in, and shape, the everyday conversations occurring in the life and work of the school.