Now, there a few more things that we can talk about in this case.

One of them being the physical location, or the physical space, itself. The school was located in downtown and this lent itself to field trips and businesses, and the museum district. The building itself was small. It lacked sufficient space for a gym and it's heating wasn't always certain. In spite is, of this all these kinds of deficits, the individuals in the school did not want to move to another building even when they were offered it. Nets argues that the context put everyone into shared spaces. It pushed them together and created more of a warm atmosphere. All the teachers reported that the school's small size and partitioning into units enabled the teachers to get to know the students individually, and to have a healthy rapport with one another. So, in some ways, this, this eventually leads to kind of a healthy faculty culture and ethos. So, the faculty regarded themselves to have good relationships with students, and with one another. And, they saw that kind of positive relationship as an end in itself, something to strive for, as well as kind of a means to better learning. With few exceptions, teachers viewed all students as essentially good children. They had this kind of benign view of, of youth, a kind of belief. A deep social structure future. And they regarded the mutual rapport, both with students and one another as normal. It was naturalized. Teachers didn't misidentify with their students. They didn't see them as, as, disjoint or rebel, resistant. The faculty culture doesn't just happen, though, and that's our views that it has to be rebuilt, passed on and renewed. And, this occurred in several ways during various kinds of meetings, like team meetings and faculty lounge conversations. Teachers in these kinds of conservations tended to interject positive comments that spun negative ones in, in positive ways. So, new recruits got socialized through these experiences, so the culture was passed on. So, someone might show up from another school and criticize a student, and the

teacher spins it in a different direction that's positive. Informal leaders respectfully sanction new teachers that adopted a negative view of students, and they redirected them to one of respect and building them up. That said, the culture wasn't necessarily uniform. There were exceptions and Metz's remarks on five teachers angrily confronting students are a case in point. These teacher tended not to use group instruction. But rather whole, whole class and recitation. In addition, the students knew who they were, and responded to them negatively. That said, Metz is quick to point out that these teachers were, were negative relative to the teachers in the school. So, that's not terribly bad in comparison to say, teachers in the junior high that used to be next door. Her point is that the school culture is a fragile construction that needed to be reproduced through various kinds of interactions and activities and routines that are built into the social structure. The final thing to talk about is the principal. So, here we have a leader, and they have great influence over the organization. The principal, Mrs. Michael influenced the tune of interpersonal relationships by all sorts of indirect and informal means. But, she controlled the IGE curriculum and its instruction by a more direct and formal and authoritative means. So, we had very different kinds of approaches there. It wasn't official doctrine to have positive relationships with students, but the principle encouraged in a variety of ways. In her speeches, she valued building up students. She wanted relative assessments occur, to occur and, and she wanted this over and above objective or universal assessments. She wanted teachers to do field trips, and she encouraged ethnic pride and was involved in those groups and sought their integration. She even publicly appreciated teachers who led extra curricula and made it a point of giving them institutional resources they needed for such endeavors. So, in, in short, that the principal's relationships with faculty and the

students mirrored that of the school culture. Whether one influence the other isn't so clear, but they reinforced each other for sure. The principal's relationship with faculty over the individually guided education is a different matter. The IGE program was imposed by the district and the faculty felt like they had no choice or discussion over it, initially, even though they, they selected in a way. They felt a degree of resistance, initially, and Mrs. Michael resorted to formal hierarchical authority to implement the program, and the faculty meetings of the first two years she reminded teachers they had to implement the IGE, or find a job at another school district. At the end of the first year, she even demanded three teachers transfer, and these are tenured teachers. And, this kind of lead to a lot of conflict. Eventually, two of them were persuaded to leave, but the third filed a grievance, and it was, and it was a point of contention. Faculty were upset some since they didn't feel the, the, that the involuntary transfer was fair of the two teachers, and many didn't know how to implement the IGE in the first year. So, it was a little bit of frustration in that kind of top down authoritative implementation. By the third year, the teachers were more comfortable with IGE, and they resisted less, and the principal resorted to more positive reinforcement and lessened her use of official powers. So, but I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Metz makes it clear that the resistant teachers were a minority at best and that there was a degree of respect even so. So this, this anger or the resistance didn't diffuse say, to make a dysfunctional faculty culture, it remained kind of positive functional. So, in summary, the distinctive feature of Adams Avenue School was the constructive relationships that are created. It had a particular technology was the, the effort and that technology was the formal IGE Program to a moderate degree, and the positive relationship seem to reinforce the elements of the IGE, For

example, the aspects of IGE that rendered negative judgment were private, no, sorry, the aspects of IGE that rendered negative judgment private were reinforced. The focus on individual or relative performance was reinforced. And the effort to nurture individuals and relationships via supportive skills groups was reinforced. So, the pride of slow learners was protected, and special activities built a sense of fun and camaraderie. The technological or task arrangement of the school did not work alone. It required a faculty culture and school character that assumed respect would breed further respect. The lack of training and rush to get IGE going led the principal to use her formal authority and to push IGE through, and the principal believed it was her choice to do this in response. It was not a pressure from the district office, per se, that she perceived. But, even so, this pressure from the principal led the faculty be somewhat resistant and upset at first. A minority remains somewhat angry even later, but the faculty and principal did find ways to work respectively and productively together. Again, this is partially result of the small schools and the positive colloquial ethos. The teachers believed the small schools contributed to their getting to know their students individually, and this was the secret to their success. They did not notice the contribution to their culture, students didn't either. They didn't explicitly recognize that they had this particular culture that was distinctive, they saw this as natural. And they didn't even really recognize the IGE Program as contributing that much, even though, Metz's kind of characterization did see it to be so. Instead, they had a benign belief that seemed natural to them and the cultural operated there at its best, according to Metz. So, we have this story about a, technology of small schools and a particular curriculum that changed the ethos or constructed a positive ethos or culture of a school that led to a kind of, social structure that was mutually reinforcing and generally positive, by Metz's account. So, I, I try to develop a summary table of, of looking at a case, and how we can

use the organizational elements to kind of decipher it and make sense of it. The main storyline or the dominant pattern of inference, you'll see this kind of line used in Graham Allison's case of the Cuban Missile Crisis in another lecture. The main storyline here is that here you have a technology that's imposed on a school, the IGE program. And the, the is argument is where even a small school's kind of program is also kind of implicit there. And, this kind of changes the social structure in a good way in spite of the population's disadvantages and, and potential for divisiveness, so that's the first thing that we get if we think about just what the general story of this case is. Now, here are organizing concepts. When we, we, we start to think about the elements and try to pick them out here, we'll start to see things. So, for example, for actors and participants, we have students as a racially heterogeneous population. More of them are minority poor and less prepared than the rest of the city. The principal, Mrs. Michaels, is a key actor. The teachers as actors are important too. But they're young, they're not, a lot of them are less established. There's a teacher union in place that's for or against this new curriculum. And if people resist, that they're protected versus the principal out to remove them. There's a central administration that allocates funds like textbooks, training, resources. And then, there's aggressive parents and local parents. So, these are our key actors, at least the ones that, that Metz relates. The goals, in general, the goal was relatively simple, at least in her account, which was to treat discipline and achievement problems. And overcrowding that through this magnet school program that will solve certain problems that are occurring in the district and for like the, the annex and for the, the junior high that existed there. The social structure is a little more elaborate. Here, we have teacher-principal relationships, teacher-teacher relationships, teacher-student relations,

and student-student relations. So, we have different kinds of relationships and role relations that we can talk about. The teacher-principal relationship's mostly positive. It has feedback and support. Some teachers are pushed out in year one, and some resist and complain about it. But overall, it's, it's pretty functional. The teacher relationships are collegial, and there's frequent interaction in the faculty lounge. They have an instructional improvement committee, and there's kind of a norm, a deeper norm and belief system going on about mutual respect and a focus on the students and building them up. There's friendly teacher-student interaction, and the norm is that teachers share rapport and positive expectations. So, there's a belief that every kid has good points. There's no bad child, they just have bad moments. And nonetheless, some of these teachers struggle and those were the exceptions we talked about. The fourth aspect of social structure is the students relationships with each other. That a lot of them have positive relationships, somewhat desegregated, and there's kind of a positive organizational culture. Meaning, they don't dis-identify with the school. In terms of technology and tasks, we see, I mean, this is kinda a key feature, right? Of, of what they're trying to implement. And here we have a multi-unit processing or small schools that they're imposing on this system. They have individually guided education and that consists of discrete objectives of learning like, you know, you're supposed to learn this, this, this and this. And then, they have performance assessments of whether they've actually accomplished that. And they instructionaly group students by how far they've gone through those objectives. And then, they allocate rewards or where they are in the curriculum by their progress and by their effort. So, it's by less about achievement and more about the degree of growth that these

children experience. Then finally, the principal kind of evaluates teacher progress is the, the fourth part of the IGE curriculum and somewhat emphasized in my recount of, of that case. The last element is the environment, and here we had vocal parents in year one, typical parents, school district demands, press releases. So, there's actually in the case, if you have a chance to read it, talks somewhat about the press. There's courts that are trying to impose desegregation, through magnet schools, potentially. And then, there's this kind of gifted school, a push for a competition among parents to have a gifted school in their area. So now, that we've kind of mapped out the elements, let's go back to the main story line and try to figure out how the technology affected things, and particularly, how it affected the social structure because that was the main story line. And particularly, it's not only a change in the social structure through the technology, but the deep social structure in terms of beliefs and values. So, here we have the, the effect of technology on structure, how it affects the relations, norms, and beliefs. And you a have small groupings and kind of uniform experiences for students in these small schools and for faculty, and this kind of, bred familiarity. So, the same students see each other all day and the teachers in each unit kind of coordinate. So, that was a clear kind of effect. In addition, the IGE program focused on local, localized, or relative results, not standardized, and the honor roll was based on effort. And this kind of had a, an effect on the social structure, in, in improving teacher-student relationships. It removed judgment, there was more trust, less pressure. The pride of individual students was protected, particularly for the underachieving students, this was important in integrating them into the school. And, it improved student-student relationships by equalizing prestige of academic achievement. So, you know, there weren't winners and

losers, at least, not publicly seen winners and losers as there were in a traditional curriculum. And then, a third thing is, the effect of IGE on teachers beliefs and it seemed to generally work and improve teacher-student relationships. And, by year two, the teachers had more training and resources. But, it's kind of difficult to change the hearts and minds of individuals even if we impose new practices, to go deep into social structure with the change in the tasks and technology is not always feasible. So, some of the teachers were set in their ways and they reframed the reform as nothing new. They used their past practices, and implemented things half-heartedly. But, quite a few of the teachers did feel like, they had these practices in place that reinforced their sense of rapport of students, their belief that all students are good, and the like. And, these were some of the minor practices that seemed to be reinforced by an IGE curriculum, as opposed to practices that maybe are in, in, in countered distinction with those kinds of individually guided education programs. And then, finally, this whole thing of technology was kind of assisted, its effect on the culture was partly assisted by the, the principal's extraction of faculty that may have undermined that culture to begin with. So, in some ways, the, the principal's draconian removal of a few teachers, or at least two early on, may have assisted in this kind of conversion process. And the ultimate result that Metz says, the participants are really unaware of, and she thinks in a positive way that they're unaware of it, was that the faculty culture had a benign view of human nature and a belief that respect builds respect. They weren't aware of this as a distinctive culture, they saw it as natural. And part of Metz's argument is that, when, when a social structure runs that deep, or is it, it's imposed that deep in our beliefs, that it has a tendency to reproduce itself in various easier ways than if, it's explicit and, and a point of contention. So, the fact that it's naturalized, makes it something more feasible to reproduce.

So that's the case, the case that we see a variety of organizational elements, and that we see that the case is really about a particular set of elements in interrelationship. That they influence each other, and have this kind of causal relationship, at least according to the author. And we start to see that, the author's focus or the, the analyst's focus resides in a particular set of elements in a particular kind of arrangement of them. And through this, we, we have a better understanding of, of where the analyst is coming from. And, if we knew the case in first hand or through other information, perhaps we can judge whether it was a, the right one to adopt or not. So, in some, this case application of, Mary Metz and using the organization elements reveals kind of a natural system perspective that technology, small schools, and IGE influences the social structure, or the norms. And these two things seem to be mutually reinforcing. And, they form more of a personal context for the students and for the faculty that's more enjoyable than, say, what they had before in the annex, or even before that, in the junior high. The plan wasn't explicitly this though. To form a nurturing climate of rapport, and building rapport, but it, it happened nonetheless. And moreover, the reform or culture's never fully embraced. It's something that's kind of an accomplishment so we have to continually work at it. And through these analysis, we come to see that and kind of come to see what Adams Avenue School might have to do or reinforce, or what the principal would need to know in order to keep managing it, and to sustain the successful educational