Poverty Vs. Education: 4-6 pg essay

GlobalSystemsThinkinginEducationtoEndPovertySystemsLeaderswithaConcertedPush.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Poverty Vs. Education: 4-6 pg essay

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 5

Global Systems Thinking in Education to End Poverty: Systems Leaders with a Concerted Push

Patricia Briscoe

Abstract: One of the leading challenges of global education is to reduce poverty. The purpose of this paper is to create a discussion about global systems thinking and systems leadership in terms of what is needed to achieve global goals in education. More specifically, systems leaders must support a concerted push to re-conceptualise an approach that is not limited or bounded by national education sectors. Global systems thinking involves increasing our abilities to understand parts that make up a whole and envision its interconnectedness; then look for leverage points for change, and make decisions based on the interdependency of all parts. A conceptual framework of a system for global systems thinking in education is presented. The expected outcome of this paper is to demonstrate that for education to contribute towards ending poverty, a concerted push is needed by systems leaders to build capacity of global systems thinking among all stakeholders.

Introduction Systems are around us everywhere. We interact with them daily. It is widely accepted that systems thinking is a critical tool in addressing the many interrelated environmental, political, social and economic challenges of today (Senge 1990; Wright 2008). A reframing of systems thinking to be global, broadly focused, and to involve multiple stakeholders across various sectors interacting with each other (Best & Holmes 2010) to positively reform education efforts to end poverty is the argument in this paper. This paper is meant to problematise global systems leadership and begin a conversation among educators concerning a re-conceptualised system thinking to achieve global educational goals. A global systems lens gives us the ability to hone our understanding of parts and their interconnectedness; then to look for leverage points for change and to make decisions based on the interdependency of all parts (Best & Holmes 2010). As the world today is more interconnected and interdependent and is changing more rapidly than ever, all stakeholders in national and international development must develop understandings of the different levels of a system and its complexities, and reframe to a different way of doing and thinking (Senge, Hamilton & Kania 2015). The intent of this paper is to support these goals and contribute to the conversation. This paper is organised into five sections. The first section introduces a few pertinent facts about poverty and its relationship to education. Second, systems and systems thinking are defined and connected to systems leadership and its possibilities. In the third section, an example of both global and bounded system thinking is demonstrated. Then, a systems conceptual framework is

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 20156

presented for global systems thinking in education. The final section entails a discussion of key issues for the movement to systems leadership to build capacity among all stakeholders for global systems thinking. If education is to be a main contributor to ending poverty, then a global system thinking approach is needed with leaders who are able to create a concerted push.

Poverty and Education Education plays an increased and pivotal role in the challenge to improve global societies According to the World Bank (2015), ‘education is one of the most powerful instruments for reducing poverty and inequality, and it lays a foundation for sustained economic growth’ (para. 2). Consistent with this view, during the 2015 World Education Forum, the key message centred on the basis that education is one of the main contributors to ending extreme poverty in our time (Kim 2015). As the term ‘poverty’ is ambiguous, for the purpose of this paper two distinctions are presented: extreme poverty (when people lack the basic necessities for survival), and relative poverty (when some people’s way of life and income is so much worse than the general standard of living in the country or region in which they live that they struggle to live a normal life and to participate in ordinary economic, social and cultural activities) (European Anti-Poverty Network, n.d.). Based on the view put forward by Kim (2015) and others (The European Anti-Poverty Network, n.d.; UNESCO 2010; Shah 2013 World Bank 2015), if education is to be regarded as a means to end poverty, then we must become more aware of the interconnected or unintended consequences of our decisions and the barriers that limit access to quality education. With each successive year that a child is denied education, the human, social and economic costs rise exponentially and indirectly result in less funding being available to spend on education (UNESCO 2010). When more funding is spent elsewhere (on health, social services, etc.), less funding is available for education. This creates a vicious cycle where children, families and communities around the world have limited access to education, and contributes to (inter)generational poverty. The unintended outcome is a catalyst that puts children and adolescents at risk of outcomes such as recruitment as child soldiers or labourers, early and forced marriages, and other forms of sexual exploitation and trafficking (A World at School 2015). It is evident that a lack of investment in education creates compounding consequences and further societal problems. There are currently 2.2 billion children in the world, and one billion of them live in poverty (Shah 2014). An estimated 121 million children remain out of school and are considered the hardest to reach due to poverty, gender barriers, remoteness and disability (Kim 2015). Nonetheless, UNESCO (2010) argues that even small efforts could have huge affects. For example, UNESCO (2010) predicted that if all students in low-income countries acquired basic reading skills, then 174 million people could be lifted out of poverty, thereby reducing global destitution by 12 per cent. However, the task of using education to end global poverty is making slow progress, with the reasons becoming evident as we explore further. An education system involves a complex myriad of stakeholders, human processes, institutions and relationships that cut across social, political and cultural landscapes. The disconnect among the various stakeholders of an education system calls for improved systems thinking that takes into account the interactions between different parts, and an understanding of how together they can effect change rather than simply trying to understand specific problems (e.g. access to education) in isolation (Bowman, Chettelborough, Jeans, Whitehead, & Rowlands 2015). Senge et al. (2015) suggest that deep changes are necessary to accelerate progress against society’s most intractable and complex problems, such as ending poverty. Deep change calls for a concerted push supported

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 7

by broad thinking, co-created holistic policies and solutions and connect multiple points of views. If education is to be a main contributor to ending poverty, then a paradigm shift in thinking is needed – old ways of doing things or thinking are no longer adequate to tackle the rise in global education problems (Betts 1992). The adoption of systems thinking in practice requires leadership to be the catalyst to encourage a range of characteristics, behaviours and practices that together provide the means to make positive progress within complex systems. The aim is to advocate for global systems thinking. However, before leading systems thinking, it is essential to demonstrate systems and systems thinking.

Systems, Systems Thinking and Systems Leadership Systems happen all at once. They are connected not just in one direction, but in many directions simultaneously. Systems thinking means using a systems perspective to understand how a system’s building blocks, contexts and actors act, react and interact with each other.

Defining a System: More than a Sum of its Parts A system is a set of things – people, cells, living beings, and so forth – that are interconnected in such a way that the system produces and creates its own patterns of behaviour over time (Meadows 2008). In a system, the elements or parts function as a whole to achieve a common purpose. The parts can also be determined as a subsystem of the system. Systems are characterised by a synergy of the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, because by themselves they cannot replicate the system’s functions. The relationships among the parts are maintained by an exchange of energy. Overall, systems are a set of complex and interdependent elements. Within these interconnected elements, there is an organised way of achieving goals. Systems must consist of three aspects:

a. elements: tangible things such as people, and intangible things such as school pride b. interconnections: the relationships that hold the elements together c. a function or purpose: generally, ‘function’ is used in non-human systems and

‘purpose’ for a human one. A system’s function or purpose may not be spoken, written or expressed explicitly, except through the operation of the system (Meadows 2008: 11).

A system is most productive when a dynamic balance through self-regulating mechanisms is reached. Our bodies are an example of a complex system of integrated interconnected, self- maintaining complexity made up of elements that have functions and purposes. Like our bodies, organisations (schools, education systems, etc.) are complex, consisting of people, structures and processes that must work together to make the organisation productive or successful. Best and Holmes (2010) outline that implementation of a system model happens when:

• all of the key stakeholders are active co-collaborators in the modelling and solution- seeking process

• partnering organisations are willing to invest time and resources • all stakeholders help integrate the model with organisational change strategies (p.

148). According to these criteria, a school is a system and its parts (teachers, school leaders, students, parents, etc.) are the stakeholders. Nevertheless, even though schools are considered a system, they can also be narrow and limited systems within the boundaries of a subsystem such as a regional context.

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 20158

Systems that have a narrow vision are described as bounded systems with ‘bounded rationality’ (Meadows 2008: 106). That is, narrow-minded logic leads to decisions or actions that make sense within one part of a system, but are not reasonable within the broader context or when seen as a part of a wider system. Narrow thinking explains the false sense of logical reasoning and unintended outcomes in decision-making among stakeholders based only on limited views of the bounded system. As Meadows (2008) argues, change comes from first stepping outside of the limited information or bounded system and taking a larger overview (i.e. global). Bounded rationality is evident in the case from the Dominican Republic that is discussed later in this paper. Overall, an adequate definition of systems is not difficult to achieve. However, the complexity is when parts interact and exist in, or as, an entire system. Finding a balance relies on each system existing and co-existing across its boundaries within large systems (e.g. education, health), and is achieved when the synergy of all systems has the capacity to create new, purposeful initiatives. Capra (1996) described this phenomenon as an ‘open system’. Understanding the complexities of balancing co-existence rather than creating unintended negative impacts in another system is the first step in systems thinking.

Bringing the System Lens into Focus with Systems Thinking Currently, there is a movement for systemic change in education to bring about more positive affects of change efforts (Betts 1992; Golden & Martin 2004; Parent, Roy & St. Jacques 2007; Best & Holmes 2010). Unfortunately, ‘the word system has been popularised without a fundamental understanding of its implications to the point where everything is a system but nothing really is treated as one’ (Betts 1992: 38). Betts (1992) argues that because popular interpretations of ‘system’ tend to use inappropriate mechanical models and metaphors, many claim they are using a systems approach but in fact are not. An understanding of the fundamental characteristics of a system – knowing how it works and the type of dependant systems – is a prerequisite for purposeful action. There are four common system characteristics: i) self-organising, ii) constantly changing, iii) tightly linked, and iv) governed by feedback (Meadows, Richardson & Bruckmann 1982; Sterman 2006; Richmond 2000. Meadows (2008) states that because systems are embedded and interconnected in larger systems, they create behaviours and solutions in one system that could create problems in another. Therefore, framing what systems thinking is, the skills and characteristics of systems leadership, and the possibilities of systems thinking is necessary to describe for clarity. Systems thinking has roots in the systems theory advanced by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1940s and provides an internally consistent framework for classifying and evaluating the world (von Bartalanffy 1968). The numerous definitions of systems thinking emphasise a holistic approach that focuses on the way that a system’s parts operationalise within the context of a larger system (Rouse 2005). Systems thinking can be used in any sector, and over the past decade it has emerged in the health, environmental, political, economic, human resources and education sectors. However, the challenge is to create discussions in each that are applicable across sectors, indicating a more global approach (Best & Holmes 2010). Systems thinking in education represents multiple stakeholders (i.e. governments, policy-makers, school boards, school communities, principals, teachers, parents and students). Within any system, a process of understanding how people influence one another within a complete entity or larger system is needed (Senge 1990). Therefore, vital to a systems’ organisation is how context shapes stakeholder behaviour. An overview is provided in Table 1. The elements in Table 1 allow

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 9

stakeholders to determine how systems thinking is framed within the boundaries of the larger education system (i.e. regional, national or global), and the criteria necessary to influence behaviours. In many countries, such as Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, the education system is outlined by the national government and contained within the system of the country. However, in Canada the larger system of education is bound provincially and therefore less control by the federal (national) government. These examples demonstrate how systems thinking is contextualised by differences in boundaries.

Table 1: Systems Thinking Elements

Systems organising Managing and leading a system: rules that govern the system and set direction through vision and leadership, set regulations and boundary setting, and provide setting incentives

Systems networks Understanding and managing systems stakeholders: the web of all stakeholders, individuals and institutions in the system, including and managing the networks

Systems dynamics Conceptually modelling and understanding dynamic change: conceptualise, model and understand dynamic change through analysing organisational structure and how that influences behaviour of the system

Systems knowledge Managing content and infrastructure for explicit and tacit knowledge: critical role of information flows in driving the system towards change, using the feedback chains of data, information and evidence for guiding decisions

Source: Modified from National Cancer Institute (2007).

The argument for global systems thinking is to move towards open systems thinking that dissolves narrow boundaries and emphasises a holistic worldview (Capra 1996). A paradigm shift to more global views in education is needed to encourage a deeper awareness of the fundamental interdependence and interconnectedness of national education systems in order to achieve global goals such as using education to end poverty. For example, many (Capra 1996; Bowman et al. 2015) have demonstrated how uncontrolled population growth is tied to poverty, yet within a current bounded education system, this would be considered outside the realm of education and is likely to result in non-action or be deemed irrelevant. An awareness and understanding of the relationship between constituent parts is critical to the essence of systems thinking. By virtue of education not being deeply embedded in society and culture, we cannot fully understand or take progressive action to combat major problems such as poverty while working in isolated thinking processes (Capra 1996). Overall, a systems thinking approach is in contrast to stakeholders operating in silos. However, as Betts (1992), Capra (1996), and Meadows (2008) argue, most of our large social institutions and nations that set directions for action subscribe to a concept of an outdated worldview – a perception of reality that is inadequate for dealing with our globally interconnected and interdependent world. Capra (1996) calls this a crisis of perception and supports the argument of this paper for a conceptual shift to global systems thinking. The goal of using education to end poverty requires global initiatives, not national, regional or school initiatives. Re-conceptualising one’s thinking is possible when deeper and opposite understandings are provided. In this respect, systems leadership

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 201510

is a likely solution. Systems leaders have a critical role to play in the concerted push towards a shift to systems thinking that is transformative and globally inclusive rather than bounded.

Systems Leadership to Re-conceptualise Skills and Characteristics Systems leadership places high value on leading and looking for connections between the parts, actors and processes of a system. It is the process of making deliberate attempts to anticipate, rather than react to, consequences of changes in the system and identifying points of leverage. Senge et al. (2015) suggest that the deep changes necessary to accelerate progress to combat society’s most intractable problems, such as ending poverty, requires a unique type of leader – the system leader, a person who catalyses collective leadership of the skills and characteristics of systems thinking. The systems leader’s initiative is to shift their followers’ perspective from non-systems or bounded thinking to global systems thinking. This is metaphorically referred to as not only seeing the trees, but also seeing the forest (Sherwood 2002). Furthermore, it is not an ‘either or’ but ‘both’, and is parallel to the shift of a national focus to include a global one. The typology for the definitions of leadership skills ascribed to non-systems and systems thinking are outlined in Table 2 to reflect the central characteristics of the two approaches, with recognition that they are of an evolving nature.

Table 2: Skills of Systems Thinking

Non-systems thinking Systems thinking approach Static thinking Dynamic thinking Focusing on particular events Framing a problem in terms of patterns of

behaviour over time. Systems-as-effects thinking Systems-as-cause thinking Viewing behaviour generated by a system driven by external forces.

Placing responsibility for a behaviour on internal actors who manage the policies and ‘plumbing’ of the system

Tree-by-tree thinking Forest thinking Believing that really knowing something means focusing on the details

Believing to know something requires understanding the context of relationships

Factors thinking Operational thinking Listing factors that influence or correlate with some results

Concentrating on causality and understanding how a behaviour

Straight-line thinking Loop thinking Viewing causality as running in one direction, ignoring (either deliberately or not) the interdependence and interaction between and among the causes.

Viewing the causality as an on-going process, not a one-time event, with effect feeding back to influencing the causes and the cause s affecting each other.

Source: Modified from Richmond (2000).

Overall, Table 2 shows a comparison between the leadership perspectives of non-systems and systems thinking. Non-systems thinking is indicative of a bounded system where the parts work independently with a conceptualisation of how their actions or behaviours affect their own system, but not another. The analysis of systems thinking clearly illustrates the deliberate, continuous and comprehensive way in which this approach is applied from an interconnected,

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 11

collective perspective (International Health Partnership and WHO 2009). As demonstrated in the characteristics of a systems thinking approach, a broad (‘forest’) view is more applicable for achieving global education goals. Systems leadership is called upon to foster a conceptual shift towards these collective behaviours for a systems thinking approach. Senge et al. (2015) have identified three core capabilities for systems leaders to foster collective leadership in order to transform systems thinking people and organisations: i) the ability to see the larger system; ii) fostering reflection and more generative conversations; and iii) shifting the collective focus from reactive problem-solving to co-creating the future. The first ability to see the larger system addresses the fact that in any complex setting, people typically focus their attention on the parts of the system most visible from their own vantage point. Helping people see the larger system is essential to building a shared understanding of complex problems. Collaboration among organisations to jointly develop solutions that are would not be evident to any of them individually, and to work together for the whole system rather than individual pieces, is paramount to systems thinking. The second capability of fostering reflection and more generative conversations means thinking about our thinking – holding up a mirror to see the assumptions we take for granted and carry into any conversation and appreciating how our mental models may limit us. Reflection is a critical step in enabling groups of organisations and individuals to actually hear point of view different from their own, and to appreciate emotionally as well as cognitively each other’s reality. The third capability centres on shifting the collective focus from reactive problem-solving to co-creating the future. Change often starts with conditions that are undesirable, but artful systems leaders help people move beyond just reacting to these problems to building positive visions for the future. This shift involves not just building inspiring visions, but facing difficult truths about the present reality and learning how to use the tension between the vision and the reality to inspire truly new approaches. As is evident from the three suggested core capabilities of systems leadership, the following leadership skills and characteristics of systems thinking necessary to move beyond the institutional, regional or national levels to achieve global education goals (such as to end poverty) are consistent with systems thinking. Without argument, in times of change, leadership is critical and necessary (Fullan 2001; Leithwood & Sun 2012; Walker 2006). In this case, systems leadership is required to re-conceptualise a systems thinking approach.

The Possibilities of Systems Thinking Leadership Systems thinking is an abstract way of engaging with the world. However, in the same way that a mechanical view breaks machine parts down to understand each function, systems thinking is an attempt to understand the world by regrouping the relationships that exist between systems (Parent et al. 2007). Therefore, systems thinking leadership focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect, and is rooted in the understanding of the relationship between structure and behaviour. From this grows the possibility of a better understanding of what makes systems produce positive or negative results and how leaders can foster shifts to better patterns (Meadows 2008). Related to education, leaders who understand the complexity of the interconnectedness within multiple systems introduce new possibilities to achieve more global education goals, such ending poverty. In contrast, leaders who operate from a narrow perspective are more likely to develop interventions that have little or no impact, setting off a chain of negative effects in other systems (Bowman et al. 2015). Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur & Schley (2008) refer to this as system ignorance and suggest that a leader’s failure does not come in identifying the problem, but in the complete inadequacy of

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 201512

the responses. Chettleborough’s (2015) research identifies possible directions for conceptualizing systems thinking leadership: i) increase ability to work with a variety of stakeholders with different skill sets and ideas; ii) focus actions to be inclusive of multiple perspectives; iii) challenge your ideas and perspectives and let go of preconceived ideas; iv) seek to understand failure better and help others to quickly, safely and purposefully adapt; v) consider and reduce unintended consequences. The overall view is that system leaders who have systems intelligence are more likely to have a positive and purposeful impact. An example of global systems thinking and systems leadership can be found in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which has adopted and is promoting global systems thinking. UNESCO’s mission is to build networks among nations that enable global solidarity among multiple organisations and themes. UNESCO attempts to achieve this by creating holistic policies capable of addressing the social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable development. UNESCO approaches leadership as a means to organise interconnected societies; foster intercultural dialogue; educate for a collective ability to understand and anticipate changes in the environment through education, scientific research and the sharing of knowledge; foster respect for fundamental rights; and promote the participation of everyone in the new global public space as a prerequisite for peace and development. Specific to education, UNESCO is committed to a holistic and humanistic vision of quality education worldwide, the realisation of everyone’s right to education, and the belief that education plays a fundamental role in human, social and economic development. UNESCO’s educational objectives are to support the achievement of Education for All (EFA), to provide global and regional leadership in education, to strengthen education systems worldwide from early childhood to the adult years, and to respond to contemporary global challenges through education. UNESCO’s work encompasses educational development from pre-school through to higher education, including technical and vocational education and training, and non-formal education and literacy. UNESCO also works with governments and a wide range of partners to make education systems more effective and coordinates the Education for All movement, tracks education trends and raises the profile of educational needs on global development agendas.1 UNESCO is an example of an open system working within a global perspective. UNESCO and its initiatives demonstrate the possibilities, skills and characteristics of global systems thinking. At this point, it is important to make a critical distinction between this and the possibility of leading with systems thinking that is bounded; that is, leading within the realm of systems thinking but without being able to foresee unintended consequences, or influences or impacts on other systems.

Systems Thinking in a Bounded System As demonstrated by the example of UNESCO, global systems thinking conceptualises a broad focus on actions and behaviours. The opposite of broad, however, is bounded. Bounded systems have closed boundaries, and bounded rationality thinking is thus likely to appear. Although there is a level of logical rationalising that leads to decisions or actions that make sense within one system, it creates unintended consequences within a broader context or a global system. An example from the Dominican Republic – namely, recent changes in their political system and, more specifically, their naturalisation policy – demonstrates the interrelated connectedness and unintended consequences that can affect an education system. The case illustrates two points: i) how the effects of changes in one system (i.e. the Dominican Republic’s political system) can create negative, unintended consequences in another (i.e. its education system), in this case preventing access to education; and 1 Retrieved from http://en.unesco.org.

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 13

ii) how bounded system goals (i.e. the goal of the naturalisation policy changes) are ineffective in working across multiple systems to accomplish national or global goals, such as using education as a means to end poverty. Although there are many examples of bounded systems, the author has limited the focus to one that involves personal experience. The following is a case of bounded system thinking. For decades, children of hundreds of thousands of immigrants born in the Dominican Republic were automatically granted Dominican citizenship or nationality once their birth was registered. Under this citizenship policy, many – though not all – of the Dominican Republic-born children of Haitian migrants were officially recognised as Dominican nationals. As children, they were issued official Dominican birth certificates, and as adults, they received national identity cards. This documentation enabled them to live full and productive lives as Dominican citizens (i.e. to have a job, to attend grade school and post-secondary school, access to a pension, health benefits, etc.), including full access to all levels of education. This changed in September 2013 when the highest court in the Dominican Republic ruled that for those born after 1929 and living in transit, or those living in the country that could not prove their legal status, their citizenship would be revoked. The court’s decision effectively denationalised an estimated 250,000 Haitians (Rojas 2013; Yu-Hsi Lee 2013). The ruling retroactively denies Dominican nationality to anyone born after 1929 who does not have at least one parent of Dominican nationality, resulting in 250,000 people being deemed stateless and unable to obtain any national identity. In other words, ‘even those whose Dominican citizenship had been recognised and had Dominican IDs and passports, by the September 2013 decision to revoke citizenship, they were stripped of their nationality’ (Planas & Craven 2015). The policy change of September 2013 was overruled and the Dominican government then responded with a ‘Regularization Plan’. According to Aníbal de Castro, the Dominican Republic’s ambassador to the United States from 2011 to 2014, the policy change or plan is intended to positively improve the condition of these undocumented people (de Castro 2014). The Regularization Plan states its purpose is to ‘provide a window of opportunity’ for undocumented workers to contribute to the country’s growth without living in the shadows and to reap the benefits of legal protection offered by the government. This movement at first appears to be a logical and a reasonable response to help all citizens of the Dominican Republic. Nevertheless, the outcome of the government’s naturalisation policies had a ripple effect of unintended consequences in other systems, particularly education. For example, some children of Haitian descent who were born in the Dominican Republic and were previously recognised as Dominican citizens at birth had no legal ID. Again, an unintended outcome for Haitian descendant children who were being denied access to schools in the Dominican Republic because they did not have proper documentation required to write national tests (Goris & Gambao 2010). The case of the Dominican Republic’s changes to their naturalisation policy provides an example of bounded systems thinking, whereby a policy change to achieve a solution in one system created unintentional effects throughout the larger system. The thinking found in this bounded system case is consistent with the non-systems thinking characteristics in Table 2, when the focus is on a particular event, rather than global systems thinking with the goal of contributing to educational efforts to end poverty. That is, policy-makers failed to foresee the effects that a change in the naturalisation policy would have on the education system in terms of denied access to education for some children. Overall, the case demonstrates ‘static thinking’, ‘systems-as-effect thinking’, ‘tree-by-tree thinking’, ‘factors thinking’ and ‘straight-line thinking’. In fact, it could be argued that because of its bounded system thinking, the Dominican Republic government unintentionally

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 201514

contributed to creating a system to sustain the cycle of poverty, as their decision denied access for some children to education. Solving problems by focusing on the individual parts of a system without considering the unintended consequences to the whole system (in this case, education) is an outcome of bounded system thinking. If the goal is to create a strong education system – at both the national and a global level – that contributes to ending poverty, then decisions in every part of the system must take into account the interconnectedness and interdependency of outcomes in unrelated system areas. With this in mind, a conceptual framework is needed to help give a broader vision of the ineffectiveness of bounded systems and the need for systems leadership to lead nations with a global vision. The aim of a conceptual framework is to facilitate, establish and ensure a consistent conceptualisation among all stakeholders of the ideas of a global system for education.

Conceptualising a System for Global Systems Thinking in Education The global systems thinking approach that is advanced in this paper builds on linear and relationship models. Best and Holmes (2010) describe a linear model as a one-way process, whereas relationship models incorporate the linear model principals for dissemination and diffusion and then focus on the interactions among people using this knowledge. The relationship model advances that diffusion and dissemination processes and relationships themselves are shaped, embedded and organised through structures that mediate the types of interactions that occur among multiple stakeholders with unique worldviews, priorities, languages, means of communication and expectations (Frenk 1992). Stakeholders are tied together by a system, which in turn is shaped by culture, structures, priorities and capacities (Best, Hiatt & Norman 2008). Consequently, a broad view of systems thinking with systems leadership is needed to bring about a shift in thinking (Best et al. 2008). If a systems model is used to conceptualise the global goal of education to end poverty, then it is assumed that:

• the system is best understood as a complex adaptive system • the theoretical underpinnings are dynamic and constantly changing • systems themselves exist within others and are interdependent systems (e.g.

individuals, organisations, communities) • changes in one part of the system can have unexpected changes in other parts of the

system • understanding the roles and actions of key stakeholders and how their behaviours

are shaped is important (Graham et al. 2006; Graham and Tetroe 2007) • a circular model that emphasises the importance of relationships, linkages and

exchange is necessary feedback loops are absolutely critical (Best & Holmes 2010: 148).

Based on these characteristics of a global system and drawing on the work of the authors highlighted in this paper (e.g. Senge 1990; Capra 1996; Meadows 2008; Best & Holmes 2010), I have created a baseline model to represent a system for global systems thinking in education (see Figure 1). The proposed conceptual framework is an effort to demonstrate how parts or subsystems are interconnected and interdependent as part of a holistic view, and to show that the parts of a system collectively make up the whole. In the framework, a circle represents each system. A circle/ triangle icon represents each subsystem or part of the system. These icons are located within the larger circles to represent how all subsystems and parts are interconnected and interdependent. A

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 15

bird’s-eye view of a subsystem part is included, representing a school system. The lines of all circles are purposefully broken to represent the ability of all behaviours and activities from any system or subsystem to flow in any direction, and therefore to affect other systems. It also represents the interconnectedness and interdependence of all systems.

Figure 1: A System for Global Systems Thinking

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 201516

The outer circle (global) is also broken to represent that the global education system will interact with other global systems such as health, the economy, and so forth. To conceptualise the ideology of systems thinking, the doubled-ended arrows are added to outline systems thinking and the characteristics needed by all stakeholders within the global system. The three common aspects of a system – elements, interconnectedness and function/purposes – were also added to encircle the holistic system. The purpose of providing this framework is to conceptualise how global systems thinking can work in a complex environment – although achieving it is a long-term process. Ending poverty is also a long-term process, because it requires expanding our views to a wider perspective, with an emphasis on the interconnectedness and the interdependency between one system or subsystem and others. Shifting to a global systems thinking lens from the outset ensures that larger views are able to capture both ‘the trees and the forest’. The catalyst needed to guide this re-conceptualisation to a global view is systems leadership. This will create the concerted push because when the actions, purposes and behaviours of one system are in conflict with those of another, there is no harmony for achieving any goals. Keeping elements and the purposes or functions of all systems in harmony is essential for successful systems, and calls for systems leadership with broader views. This baseline model is an effort to create discussions, as supported by Kim (2015), around the concept that if education is considered the surest thing to end poverty, then all national education systems (and all subsystems within) must co-construct meaningful and practical solutions to achieve this goal. Critical capacity-building is needed to adopt an ideology of systems and global systems thinking and to understand and act with interconnectedness to achieve the goal of ending poverty. This calls on leadership – systems leaders are needed as champions of global systems thinking who advocate for and have the ability to build individual and institutional capacity at multiple levels and in multiple locations.

Systems Leaders’ Concerted Push for Global Systems Thinking in Education No one system deliberately creates the problem of poverty; no one wants poverty to persist, but nevertheless it continues. As Meadows (2008) suggests, poverty is intrinsically a system problem because undesirable behaviours and characteristics of the system produce it. A commitment from leaders to shift their thinking from a limited or bounded system to take a broader view, and then from this wider perspective lead others to re-conceptualise the interconnectedness and interdependence for global systems thinking, is needed. In this paper, the author’s goal was to shift and generate a discussion to imagine global systems thinking as a means to end poverty. For this to come to fruition, all stakeholders must understand the complexity of a system and systems thinking, and then have systems leaders to build capacity at each level of the system. Systems leaders and leadership were identified as the catalyst to build the capacity needed to re-conceptualise a system for global systems thinking in education. An example was given of an organisation – UNESCO – that is implementing global systems thinking and building systems leaders. A case of the naturalisation policy changes in the Dominican Republic was discussed to illustrate the characteristics and outcomes of bounded systems thinking, i.e. how changes in one part of the system can negatively and unintentionally affect the (education) system and beyond. Lastly, through reflecting on the information of systems and systems thinking, a baseline model was created to represent a system for global systems thinking in education. Providing new ways of conceptualising global problems is still a work in progress, but if the old

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 17

paradigms are not working, something fundamentally better suited to the task is needed. It is the hope that this model will increase the understanding and need for leadership to adapt and lead a global systems thinking approach in education to achieve global goals such as ending poverty. The prospects are positive. Systems leaders who lead with an understanding of a global system and an ability to envision how individual parts affect bigger parts in development, who reduce unintended consequences in other parts of the system, who begin to work with multiple stakeholders within and outside of our limited system, who allow inclusion and knowledge of different levels of skill sets and ideas, who challenge their own thinking and help power dynamics in all systems, who learn how to fail quickly, safely and purposefully, and who let go of preconceived ideas to adapt quickly (Bowman et al. 2015) are needed to push forward a new direction of global systems thinking. I close this paper with a message from Senge (1990), who is one of the best known authors of systems thinking. He states that systems awareness needs to move to action of how we think and act. Systems leaders are needed to push this action, and I argue that global systems thinking should be driving how we act.

References A World at School (2015), Policy in Brief: The Consequences of Not Investing In Education in Emergencies (retrieved from b.3cdn.net/awas/fbba41fa22582d8f8d_48m6bf36u.pdf).

Best, A., Hiatt, R.A. & Norman, C.D. (2008), Knowledge Integration: Conceptualizing Communications in Cancer Control Systems, Patient Education and Counseling 71(3): 319–327.

Best, A. & Holmes, B. (2010), Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods, The Policy Press 6(2), 145–159

Betts, F. (1992), How Systems Thinking Applies to Education, Educational Leadership 50(3): 38–41.

Bowman, K., Chettelborough, J., Jeans, H. & Whitehead, J. & Rowlands, J. (2015), Systems Thinking: An Introduction for Oxfam Programme Staff (Oxford: Oxfam UK)

Capra, F. (1996), The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems (New York: Anchor Books).

Chettleborough, J. (2015), Making Systems Thinking Real, Oxfam Policy and Practice Blog (retrieved from http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/blog/2015/10/making-systems-thinking-real).

de Castro, A. (2014), Dominican Republic Immigration Plan will Protect All, Diario Libre, 24 January (retrieved from www.diariolibre.com/noticias/dominican-republic-immigration-plan-will-protect-all-PJDL452841).

European Anti-Poverty Network (no date), What Is Poverty? (retrieved from www.eapn.eu/what-is-poverty/ poverty-what-is-it/)

Frenk, J. (1992), Balancing Relevance and Excellence: Organizational Responses to Link Research with Decision- making, Social Science and Medicine 35(11): 1397–1404.

Fullan, M. (2001), Leading in a Culture of Change (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Golden, B.R. & Martin, R.L. (2004), Aligning the Stars: Using Systems Thinking to (Re)design Canadian Healthcare, Healthcare Quarterly 7(4): 34–34.

Goris, I. & Gamboa, L. (2010), The Compromised Right to Nationality in the Dominican Republic, Open Society Foundations (available at www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/compromised-right-nationality- dominican-republic).

Graham, I.D. & Tetroe, J. (2007), Some Theoretical Underpinnings of Knowledge Translation, Academy of Emergency Medicine 14: 936–941.

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 201518

Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M.B., Straus, S.E. Tetroe, J., Caswell, W. & Robinson, N. (2006), Lost in Translation: Time for a Map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 26(1): 13–24.

International Health Partnership and WHO (2009), Annual Monitoring and Evaluation of the International Health Partnership and Related Initiatives (IHP+) (Geneva: World Health Organization).

Kim, J. Y, (2015), We Must Be Bold to Improve Learning in Classrooms, Huffpost Education (retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-yong-kim/we-must-be-bold-to-improve-learning-in-classrooms_b_7306032. html?CID=EXT_TWBN_D_EXT).

Leithwood, K. & Sun, J. (2012), The Nature and Effects of Transformational School Leadership, Educational Administration Quarterly 48(3): 387–423.

Meadows D., Richardson J., & Bruckmann G. (1982), Groping in the Dark: The First Decade of Global Modeling (New York: Wiley).

Meadows, D. (2008), Thinking in Systems: A Primer, edited by D. Wright (White Rover Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing).

National Cancer Institute (2007), Greater Than the Sum: Systems Thinking in Tobacco Control, Tobacco Control Monograph No. 18 (Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute).

Parent, R., Roy, M. & St-Jacques, D. (2007). A Systems-based Dynamic Knowledge Transfer Capacity Model, Journal of knowledge Management 11(6): 81–93.

Planas, R & Craven, J. (2015), Thousands Woke Up at Risk of Deportation in the Dominican Republic. Almost All of Them Are Black, Huffington Post, 18 June (retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/ dominican-republic-deportations_n_7608886.html).

Richmond, B. (2000), The ‘Thinking’ in Systems Thinking: Seven Essential Skills (Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications).

Rojas, R. (2013), Dominican Court Ruling Renders Hundreds of Thousands Stateless, Reuters, 12 October (retrieved from www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/12/usdominicanrepublic-citizenshipidUSBRE99B0 1Z20131012).

Rouse, M. (2005), Systems Thinking, SergioCio.com (retrieved from http://searchcio.techtarget.com/ definition/systems-thinking).

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of a Learning Organization (New York: Double Day).

Senge, P. Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J. & Schley, S. (2008), The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World (New York: Crown Publishing).

Senge, P., Hamilton, H. & Kania, J. (2015), The Dawn of Systems Leadership, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter (retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_dawn_of_system_leadership).

Shah, A. (2013), Poverty Facts and Stats, Global Issues (retrieved from www.globalissues.org/article/26/ poverty-facts-and-stats)

Sherwood, D. (2002), Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager’s Guide to Applying Systems Thinking (London: Nicholas Brealey).

Sterman J.D. (2006), Learning from Evidence in a Complex World, American Journal of Public Health 96(3): 505– 514.

UNESCO (2010), Education Counts: Towards the Millennium Development Goals, Education For All Global Monitoring Report (Paris: UNESCO) (retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001902/190214e.pdf).

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968), General System Theory: Foundations, Developments, Applications (revised edition) (New York: George Braziller).

ISEA • Volume 43, Number 3, 2015 19

Walker, K.D. (2006), Fostering Hope: A Leader’s First and Last Task, Journal of Educational Administration 44(6): 540–569.

World Bank (2015), Data on education (retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/topic/education).

Wright, D. (2008), A Note from the Editor, in D. Wright (ed.), Thinking in Systems: A Primer (White Rover Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing): xi-xiii.

Yu-Hsi Lee, E. (2013), Dominican Republic Revoked Citizenship for Haitian Children, Think Progress, 30 September (retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/09/30/2693951/dominican- republic-revoke-citizenship/).

Author Details Patricia Briscoe, EdD Assistant Professor Niagara University, Ontario Campus 131 Farnham Avenue Toronto, Ontario CANADA M4V 1H7 Email: [email protected]

Copyright of International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)) is the property of Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.