Throughout the postings that we have so far there is a common theme of change that is emerging from reading Gladwell's work, the Tipping Point. Previously we considered the role of different change agents in education and the contents of a change message that we are trying to bring to people. The final consideration that Gladwell addresses in his writing is that of the power of context. There are a number of different contextual ideas that Gladwell refers to: the fact that small changes in context can determine whether a change will tip, the implication that behaviour is a function of social context and the idea of social channel capacity and its relationship to the most beneficial size of groups for change.
If one of the changes that you are trying to bring about is rebuilding an organization's morale we can apply the work of James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, the Broken Window theory (as cited by Gladwell, 2002, p. 141). The lessons from New York City and the changes that occurred within the city during the early 90's and the implications for schools can not be overlooked. We have seen this theory in action popularized in the movie "Lean on Me", a true to life story loosely based on a former high school principal from New Jersey who cleans up a school in all aspects.
Essentially New York City was not a pretty place to live in during the late 1980's and early 1990's. There was rampant crime throughout the city; the streets were unsafe as illustrated by the story of Bernie Goetz. Mr. Goetz was involved in shooting four black youths who were approaching him in a provocative manor. He fled the scene of the crime and was considered to be a hero having done what so many other New Yorkers felt that they could not do, stand up to the thugs. He turned himself in and was acquitted for his crime.
Wislon and Kelling surmised that this act of violence by an individual who would not have typically acted in such a way was a result of the context that he was living in. At the time the city had the appearance of anarchy. It was extremely dirty; graffiti on the walls of the subway system, people jumping the fare turnstiles, squeegee people not being addressed, numerous broken windows, and the list goes on.
Enter the change, addressing the issues one by one, the city made a dramatic turn around. It was the little things that needed to be addressed. Clean up the subway system car by car. Apprehend the fare jumpers. Deal with issues of public urination. These seemingly small offenses combined together created a context of fear, people did not feel safe, people who were unlikely to act out, did so. It was all a matter of the surroundings.
There is an obvious application for the Broken Window theory in schools. In the position of leadership, faced with a school where you need to make a dramatic change it will not be a one shot, big idea that is going to transition your school. It is going to be addressing smaller issues one by one, issues that are creating a negative context within the building. Here are some ideas to keep in mind: deal with graffiti promptly, keep the washrooms clean, get out of the office and be visible to everyone, connect with people to be proactive as opposed to reactive, ensure that small acts of defiance are dealt with, avoid looking the other way, see confrontation as an opportunity to gain insight to the building and the people within. It is through dealing with the context of the building and the interactions there that you can bring about change.
The other highlight regarding context was the idea that there is an ideal maximum size of a group for which you can have the most effective interaction. Consideration of the size of the school can impact the ease at which you can bring about change. Reflecting on current schools and their size, there is wide variety. Larger schools are disadvantaged with regards to their communication. A school that has two thousand students over three grades will have a lot of difficulty ensuring that students do not fall through the cracks. So what is the maximum size for an effective group?
Social channel capacity is the number of individuals that we can keep track of with regards to their relationships with us and with others within the group. So what do you think would be the largest number of people that you could keep track of in terms of the interrelationships within a group? It turns out that there is supporting evidence to the number one hundred and fifty. One hundred and fifty is the maximum group size that allows for individuals to have a genuinely social relationship. Gladwell draws our attention to a number of examples where this is illustrated, the Gore-tex company and it's philosophy of forming new plants after the number of employees reaches that magic number, the Hutterites and the idea of splitting a colony when it reaches this maximum, the size of a platoon in the army and how it does not go above one hundred and fifty.
Why stay at this magical number of one hundred and fifty. The size of the group allows for greater informal one to one contact. Through this contact you will have a greater understanding of the strengths of the individual. You will have a greater capacity to transmit information. You will be able to develop relationships quickly and effectively. You will be able to call upon the transactive memory that is shared between individuals within that staff.
When organizing schools there are implications of the social channel capacity in two areas. The first applies to the teaching staff as a whole. Not that I have seen a staff that is greater than 150, there are a lot which get very close to this number, particularly when we consider support staff in conjunction with leadership and teaching staff. Maintaining a staff that reaches the social channel capacity would be beneficial in implementing change as the context of the school is more apparent and the relationships are better visualized between staff.
The second consideration is that of the student body. There have been attempts to address the issue of having only one hundred and fifty students within a group at school and we have seen this in the form of the pod concept. I have had personal experience in the pod model of teaching and I would say that there are many benefits in terms of communication and the development of relationships with the students, particularly when paired with the concept of looping. This is a postmodern idea, having small communities of learners sharing with each other. Learning is a shared experience and if we are not able to develop relationships learning will not be as effective. The difficultly that arises from the pod concept is the resulting schools within schools. There is a fragmentation within the school as pods are islands unto themselves, connected to the school through leadership and the whole school concept. In addressing the issue social channel capacity and students another issue arises.
How as a leadership team can you have a whole school concept, with is symbols and traditions and still maintain these small groups? This is a key question in attempting to change schools in a post modern fashion. In attempting to answer this question, leadership is directed to the extracurricular aspects of a school. Through the participation in whole school activities such as intramurals, sports teams, music programs, art and drama programs there is a unification that would hopefully create this whole school culture.
Through this exploration of the Tipping Point we can see a number of different implications for change and the change process in education. Keeping in mind the transitions that are happening with society as a whole we can not ignore the ideas that we have talked about. We have visited considerations such as; the need to understand the messengers for change, the message itself and the context in which the message is being shared. Changing schools in education is inevitable and it is important that we have a clear understanding of the process and the individuals involved as we try to change schools and education for the better.
Reference
Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping Point- How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment