From turbulence to preturbance

Turbulence

 

In this week’s post I want to explain a little about the theory of turbulence in relation to school change or reform, and also apply this theory to students own development and change as they learn and develop.

In systems theory (which underpins my research), it is accepted that change is not possible from a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium in a system (such as a school that is made up of multiple parts to form a functioning whole) is equivalent to death. Systems theory states that from chaos, from the brink of failure and destruction, real change is possible. This is because all the aspects of the system are under threat and therefore have to adapt to their environment or any challenge in order to survive.

For example, Brian Beabout discusses responses of schools in New Orleans post hurricane Katrina. This was an area of schooling under strain before the disaster, poorly resourced and with massive problems of inequality. The destruction of school buildings, many staff leaving and the decentralisation of the running of the schools during the storm was the tipping point that forced inevitable change.

Turbulence theory (Gross, 1998) helps us to further understand this idea of optimal levels of threat to the system and change that might occur as a result. Turbulence is defined as any change in the school’s environmental conditions, for example a drop in funding, a sudden rise in student numbers, having to move buildings, staffing issues and so on. When the people that work in these schools are prompted to consider re-organsing the school in some way as a result of these environmental changes (such as making changes to how the budget is spent, hiring new staff, changing curriculum and so on), the turbulence becomes preturbance (which means that a change has been analysed by school staff who have considered changing organisational practice as a result).

There are of course, varying degrees to which the school will experience environmental change. Gross defines the different types as:

 

Light turbulence signifies an issue that requires some attention, but poses little threat to the school system’s functioning. Moderate turbulence poses measurable challenges to the system, and must be addressed in some way so that the school can continue to function. Severe turbulence is a strong disruption to the school system that could lead to collapse if immediate action is not taken. (Beabout, 2008)

In extreme cases (Gross referred to these as extreme turbulence), school reform was abandoned altogether – there was too much change to or around the school system to even consider making further efforts to change – no stability as a foundation for change if you will. Beabout asserts that the optimal amount of turbulence to a school system for healthy changes to occur in school as a result is moderate turbulence at the school level would be ideal for instituting educational change. This type of turbulence gives the school some time to learn about the problem and to collaborate on next steps in a way that higher levels of turbulence might not (Beabout, 2008).

Schools are known as ‘nested systems’, i.e. they are not a system in isolation but a system made of parts (people, organisations and practices) that is, itself part of a bigger system of parts (e.g. federation of schools or a county of schools) that is part of a bigger system (e.g. national schools, education policy), that is part of a bigger system (our country/culture). Applying turbulence theory to schools therefore, is acknowledging that turbulence does not occur in isolation n any component of the nested system but across multiple layers of the system. The ‘butterfly wings’ analogy rings true – one change in the system can have ripple effects of turbulence elsewhere.

This means that changes in policy can present turbulence of varying degrees at school level, and conditions of adversity for students or staff in their home lives can have an impact across the whole school system. Therefore, if we want to make positive changes in both school structure and culture that are sustainable – what is important to consider is: what are the factors creating ‘turbulence’ in our system? As a whole system, are we experiencing light, moderate, severe or extreme turbulence? What can be done to stabilise the system enough to make change manageable but still possible? What changes need to occur in the system to adapt to changes surrounding the system?

Finally, because it is the focus of my study, I am considering the current attainment gap that exists between disadvantaged / vulnerable students (as defined on government reports – those entitled to FSM , LAC and with SEN) and their peers. This is something schools need to adapt to, to respond to and to make internal changes to address the issue. Our changing culture / environment no longer accepts this gap and wants to close it. Considering how to do this, in the context of staff, students and schools experiencing their own personal and professional turbulence is the key to long term change in this area.

Beabout’s thesis can be found here: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/8284/3599

Gross’s theory here: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED420094

As always, please feel free to comment and share ideas – I’d love to hear from you all, especially if you can think of a time when an external change prompted internal consideration of how schools might adapt and whether this was successful.

Advertisements

Resilience Interventions – a review of school based approaches

 

189df8a

Introduction

In this week’s blog post, I share a recently conducted review of school based approaches to raising the achievement of ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘vulnerable’ pupils (by Hart and Heaver, 2015, access here: http://www.youngminds.org.uk/assets/0002/3917/BB_resilence_evidence_base_appraisal.pdf)

These categories (of disadvantage and vulnerability) refer to students from backgrounds of complex social disadvantage and with special educational needs, as well as other indicators of risk of underachievement at GCSE (according to the latest DfE figures) such as race and gender.

Why resilience?

The concept of resilience (doing better than you might have done considering adverse conditions) is highly significant to school context, in which teaching and learning depend on human interaction and are subject to the influences of family, school and cultural and political systems.

As evidenced by the current attainment gap, children and young people from backgrounds of complex disadvantage, are significantly less likely to achieve good outcomes in school (an accepted measure of which is 5 A*-C GCSE grades including English and Maths) or continue to further education. The concept of resilience is concerned with the adaptive processes an individual or system might develop in order to ‘alter responses to adverse events so that potential negative outcomes can be avoided’ (Zulkoski & Bullock, p. 2298). In this way, applying the concept of resilience to students, and indeed the school system, can be seen to challenge rising inequality and seek to improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged young people.

Reviewing what’s out there

In Hart and Heaver’s 2015 review, the authors have considered 22 resilience based interventions with reference to previously identified strengths / weaknesses of resilience research in the current literature to score the approach and consider its utility in addressing these inequalities. The approaches range from individual competency focus (e.g anger management, coping strategies etc, to peer mentoring, to staff / student mentoring and whole school approaches)

One key finding of the review were that interventions frequently did not adequately consider how they would serve the needs of children with SEN or poor attendance who could not access the programme in the expected way. Additionally, many approaches were costly for the school and reliant on external support of ‘experts’ to implement the program, giving rise to dual problems of resistance of staff and lack of sustainability.

Evaluative research such as this report suggests that interventions that rely solely on external agencies to identify student support needs and develop existing practice are unlikely to achieve sustainability due to a lack of integration across school, community, local and national system levels. Involvement of staff and students in the strategic planning and implementation of a programme may be more likely to ensure value or culture change as well as reducing future reliance on external resources and support (Hart & Heaver, 2015). So a systems based approach is proposed, in which needs of disadvantaged students are identified and existing practice is considered in light of current research to see what could improve or support effective current work. Once ideas are generated as to how to better support these students, the key is in integrating the ideas at all levels of the system, from individual students, to classes, to staff, the whole school, across networks of schools, with parents and the wider community.

Implementations established in this way have more chance of making positive lasting change, as can be seen in the Sutton Trust reviews of Pupil Premium spending, which indicates that schools that choose interventions based on robust evidence and sustainability, will benefit more in the long term.

Read the full review of available approaches here: http://www.youngminds.org.uk/assets/0002/3917/BB_resilence_evidence_base_appraisal.pdf

Have you had experience of any of the reviewed approaches? Have you worked with the concept of resilience with young people and if so, how useful have you found the concept to be? Have you had experience of something not reviewed here and like to offer your experiences? Please do share in the comments box. Commenting is free and does not require signing up.