Note: The aim of this nine-part series is to define and describe the basic structure and components of a system. This is the fifth post in the series, which is excerpted from Chapter 4 of my recently published book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools.

As I characterize them throughout Win-Win, a school is a system. Systems must have elements, interconnections, and a function (nonhuman systems) or a purpose (human systems). The elements are the students, teachers, administrators, curriculum, technology, buildings, etc. Its interconnections are the many written and unwritten rules, policies, procedures, lessons, teacher-student, teacher-principal, and school-family relationships that hold the elements together.

The purpose of a school will vary based on who you ask. Some may think it is to educate students and prepare them for college, military service, or work. Others may focus on scoring high on state tests. Still others may see schools as providers of childcare while parents go to work.  Many believe that schools should do all the above. 

The elements of the school system are typically the easiest to notice because many, but not necessarily all of them, are visible. I listed a few of those elements above, but there would be almost no end to the list (e.g., paper, pencils, chairs, desks, etc.). The interconnections are often harder to see than the elements; some are physical flows like students progressing from one classroom to the next. Other interconnections include how students are assigned to schools, exams and grades, promotion requirements, budgets and resource allocation, and perhaps most importantly, the interaction of students and teachers during lessons.

While the interconnections are harder to see than the elements, the purpose or aim of the system is even more difficult to see. If you’ve ever found yourself doubting the purpose of an organization, be it a school or otherwise, that’s likely because there is a mismatch between the organization’s stated purpose (goals or other rhetoric) and its actual behavior. Fixing this mismatch is extremely difficult for three reasons. First, a critical function of almost every system is to perpetuate its own existence. Second, the system’s purpose is not always what any one individual within the system intended. Third, and most importantly, even though we frequently refer to ‘school systems’, it is not always evident that systems thinking is going on in our schools nor is this type of mindset common among those that make education policy.

There may be no better example of non-systems thinking in education than when the issue of poverty is discussed. In one camp, you have people who insist that in order to fix underperforming schools, you must fix poverty. In the other camp, you have the people who insist that to fix poverty, you have to fix underperforming schools.

So, which camp has it right? 

From the systems thinking perspective, the answer is neither. This type of simplistic, linear, cause-and-effect way of viewing the world doesn’t work in complex social systems. Instead of seeing only that A causes B, the systems thinker will ask how B may also influence A and how A might reinforce or even reverse itself. When someone tells you that poverty causes underperforming schools, you’ll ask yourself how underperforming schools may cause poverty. 

The main point is that once you have the systems lens, you’ll start thinking about the world and the systems in which you are embedded as dynamic and interconnected. Instead of looking for someone to blame as in the case of underperforming schools, you’ll start asking, “What’s the system?”

***

John A. Dues is the Chief Learning Officer for United Schools Network, a nonprofit charter management organization that supports four public charter schools in Columbus, Ohio. He is also the author of the newly released book Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools. Send feedback to jdues@unitedschoolsnetwork.org.