Michael Fino

EDLD 6000
October 5. 2016
Systems Thinking in Schools

Considering the concept of systems thinking, the first thing that comes to mind is the

nature of an organization. According to Peter Senge, systems thinking can exist in the context of

a learning organizationan organization that has its sights on expanding capacity and is not

satisfied with the status quo. Educational institutions fit the mold of a learning organization

perfectly, as the climate and landscape of our schools is continuously shifting, and to be effective

we must not only adapt, but innovate our approaches and mindsets. The world in which we live

changes year to year, and if we compare the present day to a previous era, innumerable factors

require us to design new methods within the system.

In general terms, systems thinking in schools is to look at an educational institution as a

whole, considering how all of the very complex moving parts interact and affect one another.

When making decisions, organizations often look for a quick fixat the expense of long-term

success and gains. Making certain changes that might appear to improve results in the short term

can actually set in motion a chain reaction of negative consequences down the road. This idea

that we can potentially give a tremendous effort with the very best of intentions and still make

things worse for our students is quite ominous, to say the least. As the leader and manager of a

school, a principal really needs to consider the pros and cons of all significant decisions and

changeswith all divisions and stakeholders in mind. Under pressure I can understand how

school leaders would want to make grand and swift decisions to improve their schools, but

systems thinking argues that measured and gradual change can have a much more positive

impact deep into the future.

 The past three years, there has been a definite positive trend in student achievement

within our mathematics department. Analyzing previous STAR test results, which assessed on

the earlier California standards prior to the adoption of Common Core, student scores were

extremely low and stagnant. From 2011 to 2013, scores moved from 15% to 16%, and then fell

back down to 12%. In all three of these years, statewide averages hovered right around 50%; our

district was seeing negative stagnation. The past couple of years, however, have seen some nice

gains in mathematicsand these gains have been accomplished with the new Smarter Balanced

assessments (Common Core aligned). Specifically, 2014-2015 saw 21% of students meeting or

exceeding standards, and 2015-2016 saw 25% of students meeting or exceeding standards. This

is a positive development, but unfortunately we continue to see high rates of Ds and Fs in our

Algebra 1 classes. When a significant percentage of students enter their freshman year well

below grade level and are ill-prepared for the demands of the most important foundational

mathematics course of their high school years, teachers and administrators take notice. The huge

variance in ability levels within our Algebra 1 courses will continue to widen the already vast

achievement gap. The concern is huge for the majority of students that continue to struggle in

these courses and subsequent standardized tests their junior year. Various initiatives have been

undertaken within the mathematics department in my three years at San Leandro High School

(many of which come from the district office), but at times it feels like grasping at straws. In the

context of systemic thinking, I believe there needs to be more thought, planning, cooperation,

communication, and collaboration district-wide to achieve the kind of meaningful growth we are

looking for.

In the current school year, there have arisen rumblings within the mathematics

department over frustration with how collaboration time is being utilized. Considering the
patterns and trends of the past two years, much time has been expended on surface level

endeavors like creating detailed curriculum maps for all of our courses offered. While I

understand the need to do this, to provide transparency to the teachers and all stakeholders

impacted by the school, this limited focus has no sight to encourage and expand personal

mastery. Isolated, will the creation of curriculum maps in and of itself improve student learning

and achievement? I do not believe so. Another initiative I have noticed multiple administrators

push these past few years is in the realm of online blended learning and assessment suites. This

year, a new assistant principal seems heavily invested on pushing Compass Learning, going so

far as to suggest we utilize the program with our classes once a week. Personally, I find

Compass inferior to other widely used websites and programs such as Khan Academy or IXL.

Beyond this fact, taking away 20% of instructional time for an unproven program seems like an

unnecessary risk in the face of other options. Last year, I worked closely with an assistant

principal that was really interested in creating and using assessments on a different online

program, Illuminate. This administrator, who I very much respect and appreciate, left this year

to become a principal in New York state. This year, I am beginning to see the reasons behind his

thinkingI think he was on to something important, and our mathematics departments district-

wide should explore this direction.

In terms of structure and policy, when a district invests in something like an online

learning suite, there is an expectation that their teachers will use it. If this does not happen, why

was the money spent in the first place? We have also been asked to give periodic online

benchmarks through Illuminate. I understand why the district asks us to do this, but there are

serious flaws in the creation and delivery of the assessments. Specifically, district-office officials

have created these tests, without knowledge of the pacing of our courses. If the first benchmark
(given first semester) is testing material not seen until second semester, the valuable data the

assessment could provide becomes inconsistent at best. Our district is implementing a brand

new K-12 mathematics curriculum after using an outdated curriculum from the days of the

previous California mathematics standards. This is another huge change in district policy for

teachers at all grade levels, as the new curriculum makes grand assumptions about student ability

levels and has a rigor beyond anything they have ever seen before. While I can appreciate the

ambition of the district and desire to implement a one-hundred percent common core aligned

curriculum, decisions were made without realistically considering the needs of the students we

serve. If 25% of our students are meeting or exceeding standards, 75% are not. Implementing

such a rigorous curriculum could benefit our high achieving and gifted students, allowing them

to reach new heightsbut should this be done at the expense of the rest?

The mental model that I believe plagues not just my school, but my entire district, is a

lack of high expectations for all students. Starting in kindergarten, students should have very

clear mathematical goals that they must attain before the end of the year. While in theory this is

already being done, there needs to be more uniformity between our schools in how we assess and

determine if students are actually meeting the standards. All kindergarten students should be

given the exact same assessments. This should continue all the way through high school. If all

teachers have the same measuring stick to determine the level of a students success, our schools

can move toward more positive team learning. I look at the two middle schools in our district,

and continue to see students entering ninth grade with vastly different skill sets in mathematics. I

understand there are countless factors contributing to this, including socio-economic status and

varying levels of parent support, but we must maintain a common standard before promoting
students that are not equipped for success. As soon as we do this, we can move toward finding

possible solutions to begin closing the gap.