FBLA 272 Systems Thinking

Kelly Kretschmer
Drake University

About 10 years ago many schools in the Des Moines Public School System were put on a
list to signify that they are in need of assistance. This list forced the administrators in those
schools to make some big changes to increase test scores to keep the buildings open. Meredith
Middle School was one of those buildings. They chose to apply to become an International
Baccalaureate School. This is a 5 year process to implementing a systematic way of teaching
using the prescribed IB standards and life principles, known as the IB Learner Profile Traits.
Meredith successfully became an IB World School and the program has proven to be successful
thus far.
Now that Meredith is an IB World School, teachers must follow a set of curriculum
developed by the IB Program. This means that teachers are now teaching from a minimum of
two prescribed curriculums, one set by the district and one set by the IB Program. Both
curriculums are packed with things the students must learn and take away throughout the year.
Each comes with its own set of pieces to teach and process. Further still, the school now has the
challenge to implement the Iowa Common Core/National Common Core into their daily goals
also. Most departments and subject groupings have pulled together and created CFAs (Common
Formative Assessments) and have a district wide curriculum that they all, relatively closely,
follow. This allows for fairly succinct teaching of both curricula at once.
Then theres the exception to the rule there are pockets of subjects that have no written
curriculum to begin with. A key part of their education, the music program, is one of those
exceptions. The music program operates under its own guidelines. There is not a written
curriculum or even vague guidance on what we are to teach or how we are to score what our
students are doing. There have been attempts at writing mass curriculum but they largely fail,
particularly in the middle schools, due to the fact that none of the middle school music programs
2

teach the same things. The teachers see students for varying amounts of time in each building
and some offer tiered classes while others do not. Ill discuss the how and why this is a systems
failure under the headings below.

Laws of Systems Thinking:

Todays Problems Come from Yesterdays Solutions.
As discussed earlier, the new International Baccalaureate Program was implemented to
build up the schools teachers, teaching, and scores. It has been an undertaking, to say the least, as
teachers and students have had to learn a whole new grading scale and curriculum over the past 5
years. Pairing that with the DMPS curriculum and National Common Core, scoring and data
tracking becomes a mess. The solution of yesterday was to implement a new system of teaching
and thinking IB. The problem now is implementing all of the programs into one prescribed way
of teaching kids.
Faster is slower.
Jumping in to new programs and ideas is a specialty of most school districts. In this case,
the IB program was implemented slowly, methodically, and over a number of years. The
difficulty now is that the higher-ups in the district are now realizing that we have multiple
systems in place and are jumping as fast as they can to put it all together, particularly in the
music department. This past summer 4 music teachers were asked to re-write the district music
curriculum. Let me be clear, 4 teachers were asked to re-write it for the entire secondary group of
teachers. Keep in mind that only 4 of the 10 DMPS Middle Schools in the district are IB schools.
In a two day span these teachers were asked to write a whole new curriculum, 6th-12th grade. The

curriculum was written in haste with mismatched wording, leaving out many aspects that are
important to teach at these grade levels.
Following that, there was no roll-out of the new curriculum for the other teachers or
discussion around actual classroom implementation. Four months later, the teachers decided to
use an EQ (teacher quality day) to write CFAs. This showed us the true root of the systematic
problem not all of the middle schools teach the same things or even have similar courses
offered to students. Some have music appreciation and chorus while others have general music
only while others have a mixture of all and tiered classes.
At the end of the year, the head of the music program decided those curricula werent
where we wanted to go and scrapped all of the CFAs and work that had been done the previous
year. Therefore, a whole new curriculum will be written again. There are zero plans to pull
together a group to write curriculum or even discussions scheduled to move the program
forward.
You can have your cake and eat it too but not at the same time.
Many of the music schools under the IB curriculum are thriving, but they are not teaching
the same way or the same topics as the non-IB schools. With multiple systems of teaching and
curricula to choose from, there is a large amount of freedom for teachers to mold their own
curriculum utilizing multiple pieces from each idea. Schools are thriving, teachers have freedom
in their rooms which gives them the ability to create what is best for the students in any
particular class. This idea lends itself to the archetype: Limits to growth dont push growth;
remove the factor limiting growth. This goes both ways in the sense that there is freedom in
multiple curriculum, but also confines teaching because of the specificity of each.

Conclusion to the Laws:

The laws each point to specific examples of how to break down their capacity. Clearly
laid out laws allow us to see the inner workings of a problem. Almost each of the laws applies to
this specific systemic failure. The other two laws I would make a stake for are: There is no
blame, which tells us that it is not a single persons misguiding, but too many cooks in the kitchen
trying to solve a problem. Behavior grows better before it grows worse is also applicable as
things are going in the right direction but will buckle soon without a sense of forward motion
with curriculum.

Organizational Learning Disabilities

The illusion of taking charge.
Currently there are multiple curriculum pieces in place. Many coordinators have simply
labeled the new curriculum in an attempt to synthesize the information. In theory, this is exactly
what needs to happen. With time and the proper professional training/development a new system
could be implemented putting every teacher on the same page. However, giving limited time to
write the new curriculum and only 3 hours to write 3 years and 5 subjects worth of CFAs is
simply insufficient. The district coordinators are not asking the teachers what is best practice nor
are they helping do the work. The illusion that they have figured out the curriculums is still at
play. With a succinct plan, the idea of taking charge could be put into a reality.
The delusion of learning from experience.
As previously mentioned, the district has a tendency to jump in to new ideas without
dedicating the time to thoroughly teach it to the staff. The music department has recently gone
through many years of legislation and curriculum change. The idea that we would learn from
5

past implementation successes and failures seems obvious. However, some believe that we have
learned from this and are giving the time and effort necessary to the success of these teachers.
Looking past the previous years failures, the district continues to push forward without thought
to set implementation.
The myth of the management team.
There are many problems that are stemming from the small group of people trying to
manage this problem. One is that only a small group of people were asked to re-write curriculum
for an entire staff of teachers. Another problem is that of this small group, only one person was
an IB school teacher, therefore that curriculum was left behind. Yet another is that band,
orchestra, choir are all being pulled into the same fold, which they shouldnt be. Following that,
a lack of roll-out of the program lends to teachers not taking to the new ideas. It leaves
individuals confused by the topics and new structures put in place. After that you have the just
figure it out/just deal with it mentality coming from the higher-ups, who believe they are
managing people effectively. There is not enough delegation to the teachers that truly want to
pull apart the curricula to put it into actual practice.
Conclusion to the Disabilities:
As with the laws, there are many disabilities that directly tie to the multi-curricula
problem. The disabilities are short-comings that do have solutions, but take thoughtful time and
effort to correct. Two of the others I will briefly add are: The fixation on events that we are stuck
on test scores and student achievement to the point that we might be leaving what is best for the
student behind. I am my position is also obvious due to the teachers unwilling to work with new
curriculum and coordinators that do not see the value of creating a common structure and
curriculum.
6

System Archetype: Fixes That Fail

Problem: Multiple Curriculums in one place

Attempt to write new curriculum to

Student Achievement Improvements

include all 3 pieces

Delays: Small
group re-writes
for all, no PD
implementatio
n, coordinators
unwilling to
move forward

Unintended Consequences:
- Frustrated Teachers
- Too much material to cover

The archetype Fixes That Fail seemed most applicable to the multi-curricula situation. As
you can observe above, there are many points that intersect and make the development of
succinct curriculum difficult.
Using the disabilities and laws allow us to put into words the specific pros and cons of a
situation. Thinking about a problem systematically has allowed me to pick apart why this
problem is working the way it is and some steps that could move us forward to correcting any
shortcomings. Utilizing the visual of an archetype breaks down the process even further. When

you find the root cause and systematic way of how it came to be, the problem suddenly makes
more sense. The extras of how and why are dismissed and youre left with a precise depiction of
a problem.

Plan for moving forward

Through some specific professional development and sessions to re-write curriculum, I
believe the district music program could get on a similar track. The root problem of time with
students is something that needs to be addressed by the principals and administrators in each
school. Bringing the importance of shared time to their attention is one of the major steps to
moving the program forward. With the leadership of our district coordinator and a succinct plan
of action, each school could begin pacing together to do whats best for our students.
There are two big ideas behind our mental models to overcome. One being that there is so
much work to do we do not know where to start. This process will take time to put together and
implement. Another mental model we are dealing with is the Youre IB and were not (and vice
versa). There must be buy-in from all involved to move forward and make a curriculum that is
best for our students, while still complying with all of the laws and systems for the Des Moines
Public Schools and International Baccalaureate Curriculums.
With the buy-in of all teachers and time to build a structure, we as a district have the
ability to develop a shared vision. This vision will allow us to work together toward the common
goal of a shared curriculum and class structure. Carrying out this vision will allow each teacher
to be successful with their students and the information being taught.