The Perfect System for At-Risk Vocational Students

The Perfect System for At-Risk Vocational Students

Christopher Molnar

ELC753 – Systems Thinking and Intervention

Fielding Graduate University

Faculty Reader: Mark Scanlon-Greene, PhD

One year ago I wrote a paper describing my largest incoming freshman class that we have ever had, twenty-five new students whom I had yet to totally learn about and interact with. As any instructor will do I took a look at my students, and made some fairly educated guesses on who will succeed and who would not. The successful would be the students with the drive (or motivation), the family support and the
will power to make it through an intensive yearlong vocational training program. I spoke about Chris and Josh; two home schooled students whom I was very concerned about because of my pre-conceptions about home schooling and was worried about a possible
lack of socialization. I spoke about another Steve, Ricardo, Jason, and others who have either diagnosed or un-diagnosed learning disabilities. I spoke about Matt whom has been a ward of the State, who is one of the greatest natured students I have ever had in my classes. I talked about Tom and Ryan who make every attempt to get out of anything that resembles work and refuse to get their hands dirty in shop. I was worried about Calvin, Terrance, and Dave whom had felonies in their backgrounds and may not make it through if they violate their parole. I also expressed a concern about the lack of primary and secondary skills in most of my minority students from the local school district. I discussed that in my classroom I have more students with learning disabilities than any public school teacher would be allowed to have. I spoke about the Millennial generation as well as the Net Generation, two groups of students who are supposed to be able to multi-task, is comfortable with technology, and who we as educators are told are at the top of their game and we can expect great things from. In my paper, “The Students that Time Forgot” I explained that all educators do not see these “great” students, we still need to teach the basics and I wondered if their was a magic “formula” for student success in the vocational program that I teach and supervise. I wondered what I could try and help the majority of this freshman class graduate roughly one year later. For these are the students that are at risk and the students that time forgot.

The answer to this question has come to me over the last year, and more-so over the last two months in which I have been researching and reading about systems thinking and intervention for this Knowledge Area. In this paper it is my intent to answer the question “What is the ideal system for at risk vocational students?” The answer will
likely surprise you, as it did me. Before I begin to discuss the educational aspect of systems thinking and intervention I must define some key terms and concepts. Let’s start with what a system is.

I sit in my office window at home and I look out across my backyard
and a few weeks ago I saw a very dry creak bed. Sure, there was a little water trickling through the rocks but it was nothing like the creak that I observed in April or May, still swollen from the spring rains and snow-melt. Over the months the water level has dropped and the stream has dried out. In the mid to late Summer the stream bed no
longer supports life, the rocks, the sand, and the plants wait for the water to rise and bring moisture and life back into the stream. A storm moves up from the South, the remnants of a tropical storm (I forget which one) and fills the lake three miles upstream. The lake starts overflowing the spillway, the ground becomes saturated and the
stream has water flowing. The streambed delivers the water over the sand and the rocks slow it down. I walked down to the stream yesterday morning to see what the late Summer rains have brought me and I saw a few little freshwater crabs and a few minnows hiding out under the rocks. The plants around the stream have started to grow,
though soon to be buried under the six feet of snow we will probably get, to grow once again in the spring. This stream is a system. If one part of the system; the rocks, the water, the rain, the snow, the fish does not exist the system would eventually die. Just like the stream when a student enters a classroom he is not alone. As shown in Figure 1, with him is his past education, motivation, worldview, family, culture, friends, instructors and his student colleagues. How all of these factors interact is also a system and the student is dependent upon all of these pieces for his education. The system is
anything that affects a student in the course of their education and it is not restricted to what happens in the classroom environment.

Figure1 – A Students’ System

Worldview

While I will return to the others I would like to define and describe the concept of
“worldview” before going on further. Simply a student’s worldview is their view of their place in the world. Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “worldview” by linking to the German word “weltanschauung” which is defined as “a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint” (weltanschauung, n.d.). Dr. Mike Markowski (2008) of Westminster College writes that worldview allows each of us to makes sense of ourselves, our place in the world and the reality, value and meaning of what is surrounding us. Markowski continues by writing that:

Worldview embraces and reflects the
truth/reality that connects reality to self. It influences thought
and action, feeling and future, growing and understanding. It
encompasses the interpretation of what was, what is, what will be; it
centers on existence (ontology), becoming (progress), activity
(assumptions that direct action) and how we know what we know
(epistemology). It identifies meaning, purpose and a notion of right
and wrong – of ‘What I ought to do, and what I most definitely
should NOT do’ – morality and/or ethics (¶2).

There are many worldviews that have been documented; looking at the titles of books on my desk right now I can see an “Ecological Worldview”, a “Scientific Worldview”, a “Christian Worldview”, and a “Classic Worldview.” All of these views have something in common: they are in the eye of the beholder, of the person that is evaluating their own place in reality. Got Questions Ministries (2008) offers one of the best explanations for worldview that I have been able to find:

An individual’s worldview is his
“big picture,” a medley of all his beliefs about the world. It is
his way of understanding reality. A worldview is the basis for daily
decisions and is therefore extremely important. “An apple sitting
on a table is seen by several people. A botanist looking at the apple
sees an “angiospermous pome” and classifies it. An artist sees a
still life and draws it. A grocer sees an asset and inventories it. A
child sees lunch and eats it. How we look at any situation is
influenced by how we look at the world at large” (¶2).

Sam Weaver (2003) goes on to write that a person’s worldview is based on four institutions or beliefs and that all intelligent thought is based on personal
political, scientific, religious, and economic beliefs.

How a student looks at their role in the classroom has the same principle as the apple in the above example. A student who has been raised and nurtured to accept
education as a challenge will walk into a class and think of it as a challenge to succeed. A student who has been moved from grade to grade and has been told he is a failure will look at education as something to “put up with” and just slide through. A student who
has been consistently told that he or she will not succeed and will never amount to anything may feel exactly that same way when it comes to education because that is his worldview or his outlook on life.

This worldview or outlook on life affects motivation, and motivation effects success and education. There are a number of different documented worldviews and the first one I want to look at is the classical worldview.

Classical Worldview

The classical worldview began with the scientific revolution that began in the 16^th
– 18^th centuries. This scientific revolution included advances in astronomy, mathematics, mechanics, and optics. In the 19^th century these sciences where added to and now included the study of magnetism, electricity, and heat. In the late 19^th century more the study of geology and chemistry was added and began the “second scientific revolution.” The studies in biology, electricity, mechanics, chemistry and magnetism led to the discovery of electromagnetic induction and field theory. Once scientists realized that electricity and light moved at the same speed they realized a unity between electricity and light and thus the natural world. By the mid 1880’s this new realization became an intellectual understanding of the unity of the physical world and this is the “Classical Worldview” (Corse, 2003).

Corse (2003) writes that the classical worldview has four elements: space, matter, ether, and energy. In the classical worldview space and time are uniform and an absolute. Time flows at a constant rate. Matter is made up of chemical atoms without any interior parts and these atoms can be combined to form complex chemicals but atoms cannot be divided. Ether is the realization that electricity flows in waves; this electricity
has patterns and light. The energy is built from Newton’s study of mechanics. The motions of the atoms, the molecules and even larger objects can be understood. The first law of thermodynamics is a part of the classical worldview, all forms of energy: light, heat, magnetism, chemical, and mechanical can be converted into each other. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The classical worldview evolved and soon became a scientific worldview.

Scientific Worldview

The scientific worldview is based on fact. Bessinger (2002) explains that this worldview makes a distinction between knowledge (fact) and opinion. This scientific
worldview is developed based on a system of developing a hypothesis and then confirming it with repeated experimentation. “The scientific worldview characteristically seeks to reject data from the psyche because of the difficulty in developing experimental
confirmation. It prefers to deal with material objects” (¶7). The scientific worldview has a difficulty time dealing with social sciences; it is difficult to experiment when there are people with different worldviews involved. In past history the problems with Mental Illness were largely untouched because of the scientific worldview. The scientific worldview is the one found in academics, and has also found its way into public affairs and policy.

Orr (2006) writes that “stripped to it’s minimum a scientific worldview consists strictly of falsifiable components” (pg. 437). Because a scientific worldview is based solely on “ideas that can be tested with empirical observation” (pg. 437) it is limited in usefulness. According to Orr the limits come from two reasons. “First many of the falsifiable ideas cannot be tested completely until their repercussions already have been felt; second, the reach of sciences is limited, and ethics, which compose an inevitable part of any useful worldview, are largely un-falsifiable” (pp. 437-438).

There is a problem with the scientific worldview in that it does not allow for peoples beliefs. An individual may have the ability change their future by believing in something, as positive thought is extremely powerful in motivation. For example the group Alcoholics Anonymous teaches that the Alcoholic can stop drinking by willpower given to them by a strong belief in God or a Higher Power. The scientific worldview does not allow for this belief, it would have to be a proven fact that God exists for the scientific worldview to accept the teachings of Alcoholics Anonymous.

There is another worldview however that is not based on science but rather on faith and leadership; this worldview is the Christian worldview. Faith, unlike science, can
contain falsehoods and beliefs; faith does not have to be “provable” and can be based on assumptions or myths.

Christian Worldview

Weaver (2003) writes that religions around the world begin with two components. Each “true” religion explains the beginning (or origin) of life and they also have what Weaver refers to as an “ethic.” The ethic is a moral code or a set of rules that one must live by. Weaver points out that a person’s religion is the base for their beliefs of what is true and real and that this truth influences the person’s life more than any other
concept.

Got Questions Ministries (2008) explains that a Christian worldview starts with the basic questions that all worldviews must answer: First where did we come from, then what is wrong with the world, and third can we fix it? The Christian worldview answers those questions simply: we are a creation of God, second we sinned against God and subjected the world to a curse, and third, God sacrificed His Son, Jesus Christ in order to redeem the world and will one day restore the world to it’s prior pristine state. “A Christian worldview leads us to believe in moral absolutes, miracles, human dignity, and the possibility of redemption” (¶7).

The Christian Worldview is the backbone of most formal religion in the world. For example the leaders of the Catholic Church; from the Pope on down to the Parish Priest have established a framework for leadership. Through this framework they distribute the “faith-based” knowledge that they want the believers to have access to and they conceal the scientific knowledge that may bring questions to this knowledge. One of the issues we have seen most often is the conflict between the Christian worldview and the scientific worldview is in the issue of Evolution vs. the “Big Bang Theory.” The Christian worldview teaches us, in various ways, that God created the world over a period of six days, and on the seventh day He rested. The scientific worldview teaches us that the planet and the life forms on the planet evolved over time and that is how we became who we are. The debate is over what we teach future generations of children in the schools. Many of the public schools have only taught evolution and the parochial schools teach the faith-based approach. Which is correct? It appears it is up to the community to make that decision as many communities have decided not to teach the scientific approach but rather the faith-based over the last few years.

Ecological Worldview

While the Christian worldview may be
one person’s view of the world there are others. One of these could be the ecological worldview. Krebs (2008) defines ecology as being based upon the “scientific study of interactions that determine the distribution and abundance of organisms” (pg. 2). Krebs writes that the ecological worldview is based upon five guiding principles. The first is that no component of an ecological system stands alone. Altering one component, such as changing the water flow in a river will affect other components of the system. A dam could affect crop growth, fish, and people downstream, as they are dependent on the
water.

The second principle of the ecological worldview is that human actions can have long lasting impact. One of the greatest examples of this is the effect that the “Cold War” nuclear manufacturing has had on areas such as Washington State. For around fifty years humans used land in Washington to manufacture weapons. They dumped hazardous waste into the river, buried it in the ground, and did so without thought to the future. Now, the residents of those areas are left with a ecological disaster that they must clean up. This has affected the fish in the river, the animals who used to live on the land, and the people who live close by. Another example of this second principle could be looking at global warming. Out industrial age has pumped tons of carbon into the atmosphere as we grew industry and the life we know today. The effects of this greenhouse gas are changing the climate. As the world warms we are seeing species such as the polar bear
nearing extinction and it is not an easily reversible trend.

This brings us to the third principle that as humans we can learn from history. If we could have looked back to the extinction of dinosaurs almost 10,000 years ago and
learned what caused the climate changes that caused this we may be able to prevent our extinction in the future. It is also possible that we are repeating medical practices that are going to lead to another plague by not allowing people to build up their own immunity to diseases.

The fourth principle tells us that conservation is essential. We need to learn how to use our resources better. One example of this that Krebs (2008) writes about is the
human food supply. We use almost 15 percent of the world for our food. This is 15 percent of the world that cannot be used by other species that also play an important role in the ecology. This brings us back to the example of the river. Without water, the fish, the
plants, and the animals that rely on the water cannot survive.

The fifth principle for the ecological worldview is that evolution continues. Krebs (2008) points out that when we add antibiotics to food, use pesticides to control
insect populations, select certain plants for growth we in turn are selecting bacteria and insects that can survive those antibiotics and pesticides and survive on the plants of our choosing. This allows these species to evolve and grow stronger while perhaps the weaker of them will die off. Our medical community has already observed this with the resistance of certain bacteria to penicillin. While a person with a Christian worldview looks at their daily lives and makes decisions based upon the Bible and the “Word of God” the person
with an “ecological worldview” may base their decisions and their lives upon these five principles and the health of the ecology around them.

Worldview Creation

Worldviews are changing. Newman (1995) writes that a worldview is learned through cultural upbringings and cohorts, such as the peers of a student attending
school. A worldview is a collective look at the world around a person; it is not an individual’s personal look. Vidal and Riegler (2007) write, “Worldview construction is always connected to a culture in which ‘meanings’ are circulated, types of behavior are
passed from generation to generation, socio-political problems are produced, and styles of art confront us” (pg. 9). Because a worldview is somewhat related to culture it is always in a process of change. New worldviews can start from a cultural change, new
generation, a new sub-culture, or a new concept of reality. “They are not just a reflection of ‘what everybody thinks’” (pg. 9).

Is it possible for humans to affect a persons’ or a cultures outlook on the world, or worldview? We do not have to look further for the answer than the current Presidential
race in the United States. The nomination of an African American for the office of President of the United States is an historical achievement and has the possibility to alter the worldview of the entire African American culture in the United States. The children
growing up in some of the poorer, and challenged parts of the country may begin to realize that anything is possible; rather than continue to believe that they will never be able to make a difference.

System Theory

Another view of the world, or an extension of worldview is that of systems theory. System theory was proposed in the 1940’s by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and continued by Ross Ashby (1956). System theory has led to system thinking and has become more popular over time. System theory is defined as: “the trans-disciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or
special or temporal scale of existences. It investigates both the principles common to all complex entities and the (usually  mathematical) models which can be used to describe them” (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). An example of the system is the human body. Von
Bertalanffy (1940’s) proposed that rather than to take the human body and divide it into the individual components, such as cells, tissue, and organs; system theory studies the arrangement and interaction of all the components of the body. Heylighen and Joslyn
(1992) explain that systems concepts include: system-environment boundary, input, output, process, state, hierarchy, goal-directedness, and information. System theory has been used in multiple disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, social
studies, ecological studies (forms a basis for the ecological worldview), and education. The root of this theory is that nothing stands alone and everything is linked.

For the “net generation” the most basic type of system is the Internet, or the Net. It is a link that almost no one can live without. The “net generation” grew up with
the Internet and has used it since they can remember, most of them before they even where in school. The Internet is a system and thus can be evaluated through the use of system theory. The Internet has an every changing system-environment boundary and is rapidly expanding. It has inputs through browsers, appliances, cell phones, terminals, and voice applications. It has outputs through monitors, automation, voice response, pagers, text messages and printers. It has processes that make decisions, retrieve information and store information. It has state (on-line or off-line) and it is hierarchical, as the end user must subscribe to an ever-increasing level of service providers (“Joe” must have an ISP that services his home, the ISP must have a main provider and that main provider
must be linked to the root servers). Information is received and supplied and is the retrieving or contributing to that information is the goal of using the Internet. If the information is suddenly gone (or corrupt) the network would not be the same. If the destination address no longer responds to the query (or input) the network folds.
If suddenly China shuts off the feed for the journalists covering the Olympics the network has suddenly changed it’s boundary and the network is no longer the same. The Internet is one example of a system that has grown so complex it is no longer map able.

Effect of Worldviews

Worldviews do not stand-alone. Many worldviews can co-exist together and offer “lenses” for people to observe and evaluate different situations through. It is possible for
an individual to have a primary lens with many axis that offer different views. Bessinger (2002) writes that as an individual we may look at one situation with a “primary lens” and then look at each side of the problem with a different “color” lens to see the
whole picture. A great example of these multiple worldviews comes in this election year. The voter may look at the candidate through their primary worldview that may be religious (Christian), but there is also political, social, ecological, and economic axis to this view, which should aid in deciding the best candidate.

A worldview can also affect education; it affects what is taught, how it is taught, who receives the instruction and what the accepted norms are. Here in North America there are multiple worldviews involved in education and they determine (or at least help determine) education styles. There are many styles of education some determined by locality, some by school districts, and some by university boards. For comparison sake I want to focus on two educational styles: Western based education and Indigenous education. Senge (2006), whom first developed the idea of system thinking in 1992, writes that Western education starts at an early age when we are taught that problems can be broken apart and separated and then dealt with individually. This allows us to make complex problems more manageable but it also teaches us to fragment the world. Western education teaches us to separate these problems, and use the appropriate worldview to analyze them. In schools we use literature to understand the past, we read from the works of the historians. We learn about mathematics by breaking down every problem into individual tasks and then reassembling the outcomes to form an answer. We move on and learn about race, culture and society in late high school or college through required courses. The educational system has made it a point to isolate each part of life into a subject or course. Once that course is over the contents may become part of the thought process of for other courses but once again it is compartmentalized and not spoken about again. Western education, until quite recently, did not recognize the environment and the effects of culture on the learning process. Once the student arrived
at school everyone was the same. The schools job was to teach the reading, writing, and mathematics that the student would need in their future. It was left up to others to fill in the societal aspects of life.

Indigenous education takes a different view of the whole educational process. According to Kanonhsionni (2002) Indigenous education has approached curriculum
development in a different way. The Indigenous people approach curriculum by looking at the knowledge of their ancestors rather than the Western history. Then they begin the education of their children at a very young age and instilled the cultural values to help develop a cultural identity. Then indigenous education continues with fluently learning the language. Then they teach the non-Indigenous relationships and teach about the players and the issues that arose from these relationships. Indigenous education then continues to teach both through literature and on the land. “We end where we begin; full circle” (pg. 281).

So what makes the two approaches so different? The Indigenous people have acknowledged the system of life: the land, the language, the culture, the traditions, and the environment as a part of education. While in the Western based education our students, and our children are busy taking their math, their sciences, their English classes the Indigenous students are learning about the world as a system and understanding their place in that system with respect to the past, the future, the land, and the culture. When they mature and take their place in the adult population they will have a much clearer picture of the system of life.

Looking back on these two paths to education, the Western and the Indigenous, we can see how each culture would develop a different view of the world. The Western view, the breaking apart of the subjects; the separation of the math’s, the sciences, the school, and the social life will be very fragmented. The children raised and educated in this worldview, or fragmentation, sometimes do not have “the whole picture.” The education of the Indigenous peoples combines the past, the ancestry, the language, the culture, the literature, and the land into a complete picture. The community is involved in their education thus there is a more complete, or holistic, view of the world and life around them. The Indigenous people have acknowledged and embraced life and learning as a system.

If we look back at Figure 1, the factors that affect a student’s education, we can see that these same factors also affect their worldview or outlook on life. It is common knowledge that the students’ outlook on their life will affect their motivation as well as their prior education. I believe that the overview of what a system is; how worldviews can affect a person; and how things that affect a person can affect their education allow me to propose that education is a system that is based many factors in a student’s life, including worldview. In describing the various worldviews and some of the beliefs that are a part of them, as well as the knowledge that no two students have the same cultural, religious, and ethnical makeup allow us also to conclude that each student’s worldview might be slightly different than any other student’s because no two students have an identical life and in order to understand this we must practice system thinking.

System Thinking

In education if an instructor or administrator is able to look beyond the obvious –
what happens with the student in the classroom – and is able to look at all the interactions between education, the student, their lives and their worldview they could be labeled a system thinker because they are practicing what is known as system thinking. Peter Senge (2006) describes system thinking in his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization when he writes:

A cloud masses, the sky darkens, leaves twist upward, and we

know that it will rain. We also know the
storm runoff will feed into the groundwater miles away, and the sky
will clear by tomorrow. All these events are distant in time and
space, and yet they are all connected within the same pattern. Each
has an influence on the rest, an influence that is usually hidden
from view. You can only understand the system of a rainstorm by
contemplating the whole, not any individual part of the pattern (pp.
6-7).

Senge (2006) goes on to write about the role and importance of system thinking in organizations such as businesses as well as all other facets of life when he writes that:

Businesses and other human endeavors
are also systems. They, too, are bound by invisible fabrics of
interrelated actions, which often take years to fully play out their
effects on each other. Since we are part of that lacework ourselves,
it’s doubly hard to see the whole pattern of change. Instead, we tend
to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why
our societies deepest problems never seem to get solved. System
thinking is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools
that has been developed over the past fifty years, to make full
patterns clearer, and to help us see how to change them effectively
(pp. 6-7).

In his explanation of system thinking and systems Senge supports my premise that a students’ education is based on the many facets of their lives and that the path a student takes is based on a system that they may have been led into but they, themselves helped create. If these conclusions are valid we can do one of two things. We can ask our selves how do we intervene in this system to alter the students’ worldview and offer them a chance to change their own future? Or we can do nothing and just let the past and present affect the future. I know I started teaching so that I can make a difference in peoples lives, so I know I must intervene and be able to help someone change their future. While there are several methods of intervention the one I would like to address first is soft systems methodology.

Soft Systems Methodology

Kalim, Carson, and Cramp (2006) describe one such example of system thinking in their article “An illustration of whole systems thinking.” They describe a project
conducted within the National Health Service within the National Service Framework (NSF) in the United Kingdom to better communicate and provide services to diabetics. In their paper they define systems thinking as a “framework of thought that helps us to deal with complex concepts or situations in a holistic way” (p. 174). Within this framework there are several methodologies of thought. One of these is hard systems methodology and this is useful for evaluating problems “in which a quantitative dimension is dominant, such as a process industry or some parts of healthcare” (p. 174). The authors
though point out that the hard methodologies are not adequate for analyzing complex situations where people are involved in an important role. Because of the people involvement Peter Checkland (1981) developed soft systems methodology (SSM). Checkland used a seven-stage approach for problem solving in SSM. The approach “takes
a real-world problem, representing it using systems models and then identifying feasible changes and recommending actions to improve the situation” (Kalim, Carson & Cramp, 2006, pg. 175).

Kalim, Carson and Cramp (2006) write that in these seven steps stages one and two have to do with describing the situation being studied, what is the problem? During these stages the views and roles of the individuals involved have to be identified and taken into account. It is important to find out what the roles and the functions of the individuals are and what are their main issues and concerns. In stage three the  researchers find the root definitions. Root definitions are the main ingredients of the system and they are relevant to one or more of the issues. For example in the NSF study the researchers found that the root definitions in the systems of “communications, information, and resources” (pg. 177). A root definition has certain identifiable attributes. These attributes are:

Customers: Who gains or looses because of the system?

Actors: Who performs the activities (who does the work)?

Transformation: What input is turned into what output?

Weltanschauung: What worldview is this system using? What makes it meaningful?

Owner: Who could abolish or destroy this system?

Environmental Constraints: What in its environment does this system take as a given?

An example of this thought process in the NSF study was:

C – health care professionals and direct access services staff.

A – health care professionals and direct access services staff.

T – inadequate communication to effective communication.

W – effective communication will enhance and coordinate health-care delivery.

O – health care processionals and direct access services staff.

E – socio-cultural climate.

Based upon these attributes the researchers where able to define a root definition for the human communication system as, “a multi-organizational diabetic communication enhancing system, which under the socio-cultural climate of the NHS seeks to transform inadequate communication to more effective communication. This system carries this out by identifying the need for effective communication and considering the most cost-effective vehicle in order to enhance and coordinate health delivery” (Kalim, Carson & Cramp, 2006, pg. 178).

Stage four uses the root definition to develop a conceptional model need to bring about the change. Kalim, Carson & Cramp (2006) write that the conceptual model will
“conceptually construct a system that represents stakeholder perspectives about the desired system and associated human activities” (pg. 178). The conceptual model is measured against five criteria:

1. Efficacy – do the ends justify the means?

2. Efficiency – are the minimum and necessary resources being considered?

3. Effectiveness – does the transformation process help to attain the longer-term goals related to the output?

4. Ethicality – is the transformation process ethical?

5. Elegance – is the transformation process aesthetically pleasing? (pg. 178)

In stage five the model is compared with real-world situations. The purpose of this stage is to better understand the obstacles and the solutions for effective transformation. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, such as comparison tables, observations, or a combination of methods. Stages six and seven identify the desirable and feasible changes and implement them. This is a continuous process in which the changes are monitored and the implementation may need to be adjusted.

Kalim, Carson, & Cramp (2006) see several positive aspects to adopting systems thinking into health care. These are: “more effective problem solving; more effective
communication; more effective planning; more effective organizational development; and more effective national healthcare systems” (pg. 184). Kalim, Carson and Cramp (2006) identify some problems with SSM as well. They write that the main criticism surrounding Checkland’s work as it ignores the difficulties in “achieving an open and meaningful debate around issues such as knowledge and power. Some argue that the idea that managers and workers can openly discuss their problems and needs is unrealistic” (pg. 184). Checkland has pointed out there is “no way of telling if an SSM project is a success or failure and this could result in the restructuring of an organization several times, requiring time, money and expert input” (pg. 184).

While the above National Service Framework project was conducted to make dental care better within the National Health Service and foster communication improvements it allows me to build upon my earlier proposals:

1. Each student has a slightly different worldview because of their differences in culture,
   beliefs, and the many other facets in their lives.

2. We must practice system thinking to understand how the various aspects of their lives affect students.

I would evaluate the students in my classroom based upon the root definition of the system as shown in the NSF study I would find:

Customers: Students, future employers, graduates, the institution.

Actors: Instructors and students perform the work.

Transformation: Information and activity is turned into knowledge.

Weltanschauung: Varies depending upon the student.

Owner: Institution or students.

Environmental Constraints: Classroom and shop learning with many other students and instructors.

I would define the root system of vocational education for at-risk students as: An educational environment with many different customers in which students and teachers take information and turn it into knowledge within the confines of the classroom and shop with many differing worldviews. Based on this root definition I am going to add
my third proposal, there is not a single system that can be used effectively in the classroom that will positively affect all students.

So far I have addressed the need for system thinking in the classroom as well as how worldview can affect a students education. There are some additional reasons to include system thinking and intervention in education. We need to look at education as a community, where the actors (students, teachers, and administrators) take additional needs into account, such that of the future of the community, and government. We must look at what is wrong, who is responsible, and how to fix it. There are many articles that have been written on systemic thinking in education and I would like to focus on a few of them.

System Thinking in Education

In one such case Lee L. Jenkins wrote an article in 2008 titled “It’s the SYSTEM (NOT THE STAFF) That Needs a Tuneup.” In this article Jenkins explained several flaws in the current system of education in the United States that are preventing them for producing more than it does now. Jenkins (2008) brings forward several systematic flaws that include:

• The need to re-teach as much as 1/3^rd of class material from year to year because of students being held accountable for short-term memory not long-term learning.

• Statistical tools are being used for ranking students and while these tools are great for sports they do not lend themselves for classrooms.

• While new programs are added in a systematic way old programs are not removed in the same systematic way and this can leave gaps in the curriculum.

• When a change in methods or course material is implemented data is not collected prior to making the change, therefore the effects of the change cannot truly be
  measured.

• On the issue of homework, teachers and administrators cannot agree if homework should be done for a grade or just to assist in the learning process. Students sometimes turn in copied homework just to pass.

• Because of intense competition among textbook publishers it is impossible for a school district to purchase one textbook series that covers K-12 and this leaves gaps
  in the curriculum.

Jenkins (2008) points out “system wide transformation means that the root causes of problems are addressed and fixed. … Instead of adding more programs, education needs new approaches to address the systemic issues” (pg. 2). Houston (2006) brings the problem closer to home and writes about how the lack of a systematic approach to education affects the “real” world following school. He compares the educational system to a confused dog looking for a possum in a tree. The dog is standing at the bottom of one tree and is barking. The possum is in another tree and the dog is literally barking up the wrong tree. Houston likens this to our schools that are trying to train all students to emphasize more math and sciences. He cautions us to be careful, “What if the future belongs to the artists, storytellers, and poets” (pg.
67)?

Houston (2006) describes the economic conditions such as the high tech jobs in math, computers, and the sciences that are going overseas to countries such as China and
India. He describes the reaction of the schools to increase the focus on math and science and he describes the futility of this because of world populations. As Houston points out the problems he suggests that we in the United States continue to use creativity to drive the world economy. Houston refers to Richard Florida (2006) and his article “Rise of the Creative Class” where he explains that the future is for the creative, and that those areas that encourage the creative thinkers to remain will excel. Houston writes that these
creative thinkers are going to do what the United States have always done best, develop the idea and then tell the programmers in China or India what to code and when. Houston’s point is that in order to achieve this level of creativity we cannot continue to drop the arts and the music out of our curriculum.

The question is still lingering who is responsible for these changes? In her article, “Systemic Improvement To Raise Achievement” Mary Jo Kramer (2006) believes that it is the superintendents’ job to foster these changes. Kramer writes that the superintendent is in the best place to align improvement throughout an entire school district. This improvement must follow the key concepts of system thinking which are strategy, coherence, culture, and capacity. Kramer writes that, “Two principles provide a framework for raising achievement by applying systems thinking to district wide reform: Raising achievement requires a coherent, strategic focus on improving the quality of
teaching and learning in the classrooms, and transforming school and district cultures by developing the instructional capacity of teachers and administrators is essential to accomplishing this goal” (pg. 51). There is a problem with Kramer’s suggestion of the
superintendent being responsible for fostering the systematic change, as he is a product of the community that the school serves. He his responsible to the school board, the parents and local industry and any change he makes will be second-guessed by them.

Jenkins’s article addresses the need for system thinkers in education and leaves the reader with the question “who is responsible for making these changes?” Houston identifies the need to make sure that the changes we are making in the educational system make sense in today’s world economy and urges those responsible for the changes to look outside of the present and look towards the future. Florida (2002) says writes that the overall culture is responsible for creativity as well.

System thinking must include these outcomes as well. As Florida points out the system must give thought to the culture and the community. Kramer suggests that there are issues with responsibility for solving the problems, and Houston says that our education system is “barking up the wrong tree” and possibly emphasizing the wrong material. It appears that this is a time where systemic intervention is required.

The Perfect System

At the beginning I spoke about my students as I pictured them one year ago. We are now one week before the end of the term and that class’s graduation and I want to take a moment and re-visit my observations. Chris and Josh, my two home-schooled students, are doing great. They have learned everything we could teach them both on the academic side and on the vocational side. I did find out that Josh has a learning disability and by working closely with his brother was able to succeed in high school as well as here. I believe that their home schooling made a tremendous difference in their lives. They have had a number of different instructors and have been exposed to many differences in classmates. They have met every challenge head on and I was informed last week that they have received a great job offer pending their graduation. Calvin, one of the students whom had a felony in his background, has been a class leader. He has made it a point to learn everything he could, practiced it and drew newer students who were less interested into his group as well. I am unsure about job placement at this time but if I were a hiring manager I would overlook his past. Terrance unfortunately did not make it, he violated his parole and was re-arrested and will not be complete with his sentence until November or December. I also found out he was selling drugs on school grounds. Dave has been a mediocre student and has made it through. I think he will find work but will never have a chance to apply all the skills we have taught him. Ricardo, Steve and Jason are all graduating as well. Not stars of the class but all have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Matt has been outstanding but at times his past comes and haunts him. He has accepted criticism, spoken about his problems and we have helped him through it. He will be graduating with almost an “A” average. I still believe I have never seen a better attitude in class. Ryan has been one of the biggest surprises; it took some external motivation to make this work. We had been having attendance problems which does affect grades so I made the offer that any student who did not miss any time, maintained a 90% average, and completed all their assignment would be exempt from the finals and Ryan stepped up to the plate. He has been early every day, has been getting dirty with everyone else and has been great. If he can do this following graduation he will make it in the field. Tom has slid through the program doing almost nothing but he has been employed in the trade for the last three months at a reputable contractor. Out of an
incoming freshman class of 23 students we lost one. For our program this is a success. How did we manage this? Without even realizing what I was doing, and what I was encouraging my faculty to do it was an exercise in system thinking and intervention.

During this paper I have made several proposals, I would like to bring them all together and offer my conclusion on the perfect system for at-risk vocational students at
this time. I began with a discussion of worldview and concluded that students have a different worldview that is based on their culture, beliefs, backgrounds, community, and prior educational experiences. We then established that education is a system that has many dependencies. These dependencies may include community requirements, education requirements, instructors, and recourses. So every educational system may be different, for example there is a difference in private vocational programs, such as the one I teach in, to public programs. The private program has more faculty emphasis on budgets along with profit and loss statements. We went on to establish that education, as a system, if we look at it using a soft-system methodology is includes worldview to establish the root of the system. This worldview affects a students’ motivation to learn. The next logical premise and conclusion would be that in order to motivate students to learn every educational system must take into account the differences in the student’s worldview and therefore there can be no single system used. Would Josh and Chris have been as successful if they had been mainstreamed into the public high school system rather than home schooled?

The conclusion of the October class of 2008 brings me to the conclusion on what a perfect system for at-risk vocational students is: The perfect system is non-existent. The system must be tailored to meet the individual needs of each student. While it is possible to have a single main system it must leave room for alteration and exceptions. The education system must remember the student is the center of the system and their success and failure is dependent upon making the student the center of that world. The system must be adjusted for the students needs and therefore a single system will not work.

References

Bessinger, Donivan
(2002). Worldview and Ethics. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from
http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2002/11/17.

Berman, Morris (1996). The Shadow
Side of Systems Theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 36 (1),
28-54. Retrieved from Sage Journals Online, August 17, 2008. DOI:
10.1177/00221678960361005.

Corse, Theron (2003).
The New Sciences: The Second Scientific Revolution. Retrieved August
12, 2008, from
http://faculty.tnstate.edu/tcorse/h3630/new_sciences_the_second_scientif.htm.

Florida, Richard.
(2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. Washington Monthly,
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html.

Got Questions Ministries
(2008). What is a Christian Worldview? Retrieved August 17, 2008,
from http://www.gotquestions.org/Printer/Christian-worldview-PF.html.

Heylighen, F. &
Joslyn. (1992). What is System Theory? Retrieved August 11, 2008,
from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html.

Houston, Paul D. (2006). Barking up
the Right Tree. Phi Delta Kappan. 88 (1), 67-69. Retrieved September
21, 2008 from Proquest. Document ID: 1125382841.

Jenkins, Lee L. (2008). It’s the
SYSTM (NOT THE STAFF) That Needs a Tuneup. School Administrator. 65
(4), 37-40. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from Proquest. Proquest
Document ID: 1466216771.

Kalim, K., Carson, E., & Cramp,
D. (2006). An illustration of whole systems thinking. Health Services
Management Research. 19 (3): 174-185. Retrieved July 31, 2008, from
ABI/INFORM Global.

Kanonhsionni (2002). Indigenous
Education: Ways of Knowing, Thinking, and Doing. McGill Journal of
Education.37 (3), 281. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from Wilson
Education Abstracts.

Kramer, Mary Jo (2006). Systemic
Improvement To Raise Achievement. School Administrator. 63 (7), 51.
Retrieved September 21, 2008 from Proquest. Proquest document ID:
1095153671.

Krebs, Charles (2008).
The Ecological World View. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University
of California Press. 1^st
Edition.

Markowski, Mike (2008).
Worldview? Retrieved August 12, 2008, from
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/H311/WV.htm.

Newman, David (1995). Sociology:
Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press – Sage Publications.

Orr, Matthew (2006). What is a
Scientific Worldview, and How Does It Bear on the Interplay of
Science and Religion? Sygon. 41 (2). Retrieved August 13, 2008, from
Wiley InterScience. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2005.00748.x

Senge, Peter (2006). The
Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Doubleday. 2^nd
Edition.

Vidal, C. & Riegler,
A. (2007). World Views From Fragmentation to Integration. Retrieved
August 17, 2008, from
http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/pub/books/worldviews.pdf.
Originally published in 1994 by VUB Press: Brussels.

Weaver, Sam (2003). On
worldview and culture. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weaver/030206.

Weltanschauung (2008). In
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved August 12, 2008 , from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weltanschauung.