As part of my induction in my new role at Ambition Institute, we looked at this paper from Cambridge Assessment. One phrase that stood out to me was "constant arbitrary tinkering" (p.10). This has too often been the case to CPD I've come across; always well intended but lacking the "clarity of aim and purpose, focus on evidence of effectiness, and careful balancing of the assets of exisiting and new arrangements" (p.10) that are critical to educational improvement. Before delving into that, there is one particular definition that will be helpful to unpack: the difference between complicated and complex.
"Complicated systems have many parts and many interactions, but give predictable outcomes" the paper says, "by contrast, complex systems possess a large number of interacting components, with outcomes which are not a simple function of the interaction of the parts" (p.9). An elaborate watch is a complicated system because although it has a large number of interacting parts, its outcome is highly predictable and consistent. Schools, as with many and indeed most social systems, on the other hand are complex. The paper says that educational policy is complicated as a result of the various other aspects of social policy (health, welfare etc.) that can impact it, but it is complex because of the scale and variety of interactions that take place, resulting in outcomes that are neither predictable nor consistent across contexts. The implications?
There is perhaps no "receipe" that, if followed correctly, will result in schools achieving a "goal" state. We cannot 'cherry-pick' from other high-performing contexts, 'sharing best practice' has significant limitations and whilst I would never suggest we shouldn't seek out or share "good practice", we must be mindful of the contexts in which that practice has worked and carefully analyse the mechanical underpinnings of it.
The paper then went on to discuss the Cycle of Planned Failure*.
I could not get over how useful this diagram is! One of the examples discussed was around after-school intervention clubs, a technique often employed by schools to boost attainment. Does simply providing a staffed time after school with subject specific support mean students will benefit? The evidence suggests that on balance, this approach will more often than not fail. The success of these programs is underpinned on appropriate premises, availability of staff, good behaviour management for the setting, suitable tasks, safe transport home and more. So a school looking to implement an after-school intervention club should first thoroughly check what the underlying problem is, "the importance of anaysis preceding action" (p.11). Without this thorough analysis it is likely that, instead of solving our original problem, we may end up creating new ones - the result of working in a complex, rather than complicated system.
So we've looked at the difference between complex and complicated systems, what they mean in the world of education, and introduced ourselves to the cycle of planned failure. In the next blog, we're going to look at the recommendations for breaking the cycle. In the meantime on page 12 the paper gives a specific case study of the cycle of planned failure in practice with the implementations of national qualifications in England - something I'd highly recommend reading as at contextualises the cycle in a way highly relatable to teachers.
*Achtenhagen, F. (1994) Presentation to Third International Conference of Learning at Work. Milan, June 1994
Comments