Mr. TSE Pak Hoi, Isaac 

Ph.D. student, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong

Principal, Po Leung Kuk Yao Ling Sun College

Abstract | Preamble | The Family of Complexity Theories | The Pragmatic Approach | Building a Convention for Verifying the Rich Insights the Family of Complexity Theories offer | The Tension on the Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools in Hong Kong | Medium of Instruction policy within one school | Unintended Side Effects | Reshaping the Concept of Leading | Final Reflection

Abstract <back to top >

Chaos Theory seeks order in intricate, unusual, or odd patterns (Willower & Uline, 2001). Griffiths et.al. (1991) explored the potential of Chaos Theory as an alternative to inform educational administration but asserted that because of the requirement of very precise measures on initial conditions in order to achieve predictable outcomes, the application of Chaos Theory to educational administration is limited.

Chaos theory opens up a rich platform for reflections towards unanticipated surprises in the management of schools and schools improvement. I propose that we should bridge this observation-based scientific theory to the family of Complexity Theories, so as to understand the school ecological settings as both a hierarchical stable system and a complex dynamic system.

I further propose employing the Contingency Theory as strategic guide for decision-makings against the backdrop nurtured by the family of Complexity Theories.

Putting practitioners at the center of a new research paradigm, I proceed to explore and verify the fecundity of this approach using a particular issue of a mandatory shift in the medium of instruction for secondary schools as a centralized effort of school improvement in Hong Kong since 1998.

 

Preamble <back to top >

Against the background of fierce political demand for open government, efficacy and accountability for any publicly funded agencies, schools could no longer be a closed system. If we take the school as the center of discussion, and assume an onion-layering pattern to describe the relationship of the school with her stakeholders (Fig. 1), we arrive at a picture that the school and the school management body stay in the core. Counting outward in sequence are the students and staff (1), parents and school sponsors, other surveillance agents such as the mass media (2), etc. and ultimately the legislative, political and Non-government bodies (3).

In this article, I shall introduce my conception of the connections between Chaos Theory, Complexity Theories and Contingency Theory and the significance of a holistic view of these theories on the understanding and the management of the school ecological setting as an open, dynamic system though it is at the same time hierarchical and mechanistic in many aspects of daily operations.

School improvement is a vast arena that no panacea fits all situations. I shall verify my view using the ongoing tension of the mandatory shift on the Medium of Instruction for secondary schools (MOI) issue since 1998 in Hong Kong.

The Family of Complexity Theories <back to top >

 

Embraced under this family are:

n           The Theory of Autopoiesis ¡V emphasize on self-production (self-create, self-renew).

Organizations maintain their own characteristics despite experiencing pressure for change, in order to sustain for their survival.

n           The Chaos Theory ¡V emphasize on self-organization by discovering order among deterministic chaos, sensitivity to initial conditions, emergence and appearance of strange attractors.

Organizations find their own way of overcoming crisis, controlling destructive surprises and are reborn with new pattern to match with the new environmental conditions. How they could become depends on the initial context in which change takes place, and also on the history of change. The outcome could hardly be repeated unless one could manipulate the very tiny detail of the initial conditions in full.

n           The Dynamical Systems Theory ¡V emphasize on non-linear interactive change relationships; identifies 4 kinds of temporal patterns of data, vide. fixed (static), periodic (cyclical), chaotic (strange) and random chance. [i]

[HYF1]  

Organizations exist in interactive relationships with a large number of stakeholders all the time. The mutual influence is unstable at any particular point of time but the overall relationships constitute a definite pattern with clear boundaries which would be revealed in the long run.

n           The Complex Non-linear Systems Theory ¡V emphasize the characteristic interaction of multiple systems that are both ordered and chaotic (chaordic [ii]

).

Components of organizations interact among themselves, sharing information of decisions among themselves and adjusting their own decision through the interaction. A justified decision at time t could have to be changed at time t+1. All components would have to renew their evaluations in response to change in the environment beyond their control. It looks random or chaotic in the short run in response to an environmental change but orderly pattern could be discerned with the benefit of hindsight.

Borrowed from the leadership discipline, I would argue that it is justifiable to fit in as a pragmatic member to the Complexity Theories,

n           The Contingency Theory ¡V emphasize on the importance of context and the fitness of purpose.

Organizations could not rely on a stereotyped set of rules to handle all the challenges they experienced. There are different best options under different context. The best combination depends on the persons, the time, and the resource settings.

Contingency Theory was brought up to the leadership consultancy arena after the bloom and decline of Trait Theory (1910s to World War II) and Behaviour Theory (World War II through late 1960s) as dominating leadership theories for organizations (Owens, 1981). It does not bear the origin of double-loop open-ended thinking paradigm, the landmark feature of complexity theories.

The purpose of applying Contingency theory is to search for the best fit of purpose to regain optimal performances. It takes care of various situational constraints that impact on the capacity of the organization to routinize change as a technology (Sleeger et.al., 2002: p.78). It is therefore not an open-ended prescription ¡V a remarkable difference from all other Complexity Theories that share common concerns contributing important elements to a holistic theory of change, such as:

n           self-referential interaction and therefore closed loop of interaction

n           non-linear relationship and positive feedback loops which amplify nuances with initial conditions on the eventual outcomes

n           has dynamic, changing patterns, including certain time without any pattern

n           the potential of new ¡¥emergences¡¦ whose characteristics are unpredictable from their previous state of existence

n           are predictable only over the short term, but unpredictable any longer

 

Each different Complexity theory has its own emphasis:

Beavis (1999) first applied Luhmann¡¦s Theory of Autopoietic Social Systems to educational administration. Autopoiesis as a metaphor helps us ¡¥understand how each element (within the system) simultaneously combines the maintenance of itself with the maintenance of the others¡¦ (Morgan, 1997: p.254). There have been calls for greater attention to the autopoietic self-organizing nature of schools and school systems, and the dynamics of schools as complex adaptive systems (Brooke-Smith, 2001). This theory explains how culture is sustained.

Should Chaos Theory be grouped to the same class as other complexity theories is debatable. We could find support for either side. Those support find that the computer simulations use formulae that assumes complexity (Kellert, 1993). Those against claim that Chaos Theory is a scientific discovery, aloof from systems thinking:

Chaos does not refer to a class of systems, but to the dynamic behaviour of a large class of non-linear systems characterized by high sensitivity to initial conditions. ¡K Complex systems do not need to be chaotic to be ¡§complex¡¨ and chaos is not closely related to complexity. In other words, ¡§chaos cannot explain complexity¡¨. (Morel and Ramanujam, 1999: p.280)

Chaos Theorists ¡§paid particular attention to the way system behaviours tend to fall under the influence of different ¡¥attractors¡¦ (Morgan, 1997: p.263). ¡¥Attractors¡¦ are observable patterns of characteristic behaviours a dynamic system normally displays. This characteristic pattern is maintained through balancing the tensions from different components (stakeholders) making up the dynamic system. Such balance could be upset if one or more components are pushing too hard. In chaos jargon: When pushed far from its equilibrium towards an ¡¥edge of chaos¡¦, the system encounters ¡¥bifurcation points¡¦ (forks in a road) leading to different futures (flip from one pattern to another). At such point, the system begins to self-organize through unpredictable leaps, either dissipates the conflict and resolves instability, dissolves its potential changes and returns to the original dominant attractor, or else, ¡¥attracts¡¦ certain pattern of outcomes and jumps to a new configuration. (Morgan, 1997: p.265) 

Describe in another way, systems behave in one or more particular routine patterns that tend to be quite stable under normal context (the attractor basins). Once turbulence build up to a dangerous point (edge of chaos) such as amid a vigorous social debate, alternative opinions surface, diverse values voice up, new ideas prop up to defend the old or to support the new, and preferences change with the end result that the routines the group prefers split (bifurcation). Here, the same input value may yield more than one possible solution. We therefore cannot understand the behaviour of the system at this junction unless we know its history (Kellert, 1993: p.95). The new idea and the subsequent new pattern of routine could be very different from the accustomed one. Nobody should risk predicting too early which one prevails.

 

The two complex systems theories, namely, the Dynamical Systems Theory and the Complex Non-linear Systems Theory explain for the complex interaction of real systems.

Complex Systems Theory is more of a research perspective than a single unified theory.¡¨ There ¡§is no universally accepted or clearly articulated definition of the concept of complexity in Complex Systems Theory. ¡K

Like organizations, complex systems are difficult to define but easy to recognize. (Morel and Ramanujam, 1999: p.279)

Complex systems bear two common characteristics: Large number of interacting elements and Emergent properties. Complex Systems Theory highlights four key characteristics: complex adaptive systems, self-similarity, self-organized criticality, and self-organization. In other words, component members of complex systems aim to adapt to each other in an interactive manner. They use rules that they learn from each other. They evaluate each other¡¦s decision and maximize their own advantage for survival. Together, they find their own order to allow the survival and sustenance of the whole system.

Complex Non-linear Systems Theory emphasizes that small incremental changes can produce large quantum (significantly different and powerful) effects. The optimistic hope is that if managers ¡§focus on finding high-leverage initiatives within their sphere of influence that have the capacity to shift the context, potentials for major change can be unleashed¡¨ (Morgan, 1997: p.272). On the other hand, the bad news is that

Complex systems seem to have a natural tendency to get caught in tensions ¡K falling under the influence of different attractors that ultimately define the contexts in which detailed system behaviours unfold. (Morgan, 1997: p.263)

Morgan (1997) contends that this family of Complexity Theories encourages us ¡§to understand how change unfolds through circular patterns of interaction, and how organization evolve or disappear along with changes occurring in the broader context.¡¨ (p.274). They inform management that:

While some kind of ordering is always likely to be a feature of complex systems, structure and hierarchy can have no fixed form, hence cannot function as predetermined modes of control. Patterns have to emerge. They cannot be imposed. (ibid, p.266) 

It should be taken that ¡§hierarchy and associated patterns or organization and control are temporary conditions or outcomes. They are no more than ¡¥snapshot points¡¦ on a self-organization journey.¡¨ And, ¡§The fundamental role of managers is to shape and create ¡¥contexts¡¦ in which appropriate forms of self-organization can occur.¡¨ (ibid. p.267)

 

 

The Pragmatic Approach <back to top >

 

The family of Complexity Theories prompts us to think about change in terms of loops rather than lines of mechanical causality, think in terms of mutual causality of positive and negative feedback circular loops that would be required in order to define comprehensively the complete fields of relations.

¡K understanding that complex systems are not the same thing as an intricate, complicated static system, we focused on the dynamic issues of the complex system. This requires that we understand parts not in isolation but as being non-linearly related not only to each other but also to the larger system. ¡K(Black and Edwards, 2000: p.575)

 

The richness and complexity of circular loops is overwhelming, and there is always the possibility of adding another intervening loop to reveal further relationships of detail interactions. The challenge is therefore to look for shortcuts such as detecting distinct system archetypes so as to create general strategies of systems management.

From complexity theory and the attendant chaos theory, we have seen that complex systems move between states that are ordered and disordered. Ordered states coalesce near attractor points. Any order may be disrupted by a bifurcation point due to the non-linear nature of the relationships within the system. Such points involve a qualitative change in the nature of what order means. (Black and Edwards, 2000: p.575)

Here, we found a basis for a theoretical understanding on the origin of organizational innovation and creativity. ¡§In ¡¥edge of chaos¡¦ situations, small but critical changes at critical times can trigger major transforming effects.¡¨ Hence, the pragmatic advice to any person who wishes to change the context in which they are operating is to ¡§search for ¡¥DOable¡¦ high-leverage initiatives that can trigger a transition from one attractor to another.¡¨ (Morgan, 1997: p.271) In the meantime, take care of the entire system and its bigger ecological setting as a whole ¡V a gestalt, also that the feedback loops and defensive routines often sustain a dominant attractor pattern. (Morgan, 1997: p.273)

Chaos Theory and the Complexity Theories consider cathectic (planned and directed) changes in the long run as totally impossible, which is true. What if instead of preparing for one destined outcome, be prepared for a few possible outcomes? From there, Contingency Theory comes into play. So long as we could reduce the number of possible outcomes, or that we could identify the deterministic attractor planes, complex systems could also be manageable. This direction of strategic management research has been named Organizational Configurations in hope that just a few archetypes could be identified (Stacey, 2000: p.58) to ease management of complex systems. However, this is still a raw concept. Research output is rare. My insight on the relationship between the three groups of organizational theories and management theory as a composite theory is portrayed in Fig. 2.

As early as 1972, Child [iii]

 has made a critique on Contingency Theory. He accepts that organizational structures are partially determined by their contingencies (of size etc.), but argues that they are also partially shaped by human choices in which perceptions, values and beliefs play a role ¡V in other words, by ¡¥strategic choice¡¦¡¨ (Donaldson, 1995). I subscribe to the pragmatic approach of Child and make one step further to promote Aggregated Contingencies (multiple successes in strategic choice in sequence) as the necessary pragmatic approach for effective schools improvement.

 

Building a Convention for Verifying the Rich Insights the Family of Complexity Theories offer <back to top >

 

To sum up the characteristic features Chaos and Complexity systems display and to provide a convention of reference to these features, the following alpha-numeral labels [An] would be employed in the subsequent description on the study case. Derived from the Chaos Theory, the features are:

l            There is order behind disorder [O]

l            Fractal self-similarity is found repeating both on the same level and at different levels within the system [F]

l            Non-linear outcomes reflect sensitive dependence on minute differences of the initial conditions, often amplified [D]

l            Shows characteristic patterns (attractors) [A]

l            Displays sudden flip-over points (bifurcation) [B]

l            New order (strange attractor) may emerge after a chaotic phase [S]

From Complexity Theories, the additional features are:

l            Complexity arises from simple interacting and iterative relations [I]

l            Closed loop interactions are self-referential [R]

l            Outcome patterns are dynamic, constantly changing [C], predictable only over a short period

From Contingency Theory, I propose that effort should be made to identify:

l           Configurations as key grouping criteria to reduce conceptual diversity [X]

l           Archetypes as key vocabularies for professional reference [T]

 

The Tension on the Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools in Hong Kong <back to top >

 

Before 1997, this British colony gives graduates from English medium schools greater advantage in university admissions and in other civil services careers prospects. Students from the vernacular matriculation classes are barred from entry to the University of Hong Kong. Not until the opening of the Chinese University of Hong Kong towards the end of 1960s, the chance for students from the Chinese Medium secondary schools to university admission is slim. This empathy of oppression and hurt is still vivid among those who experienced the discrimination, despite many of them, now in their 50¡¦s, are quite successful in their careers [D1]. Recently, I met two primary school headteachers in different occasions. Both witness bitter experience of being discriminated in their first job interviews some thirty years ago, and now both express strong resistance [F1] to the mandatory switch to using Chinese as the Medium of Instruction (CMI) in secondary schools, and prompt refusal to nominate their capable students to CMI schools irrespective of the quality of teaching in those secondary schools [C1].

The expansion of aided secondary school education in the 1970s see rapid expansion of Anglo-Chinese secondary schools, almost all claim to be English secondary schools. However, apart from using English textbooks, lessons are conducted mainly in Chinese whereas English is the medium required in written examinations. Many students become disinterested in learning. Capable students, though not understand in EMI classes, may catch up through hard memorization, after class [X1]. The government white paper recommending the use of mother tongue as the medium of instruction in secondary schools was first published in the 1980s but were not followed for nearly 20 years. The original ideal was to encourage all secondary schools to use mother tongue as the medium of instruction, instead of the accustomed malpractice of using mix-code of Chinese plus English within one single sentence in the classroom [A1]. The Education Commission was aware that there are primary schools which accommodate a significant number of English speaking children and that they could benefit from continuing to use English as the medium of instruction in secondary schools [D2]. Allowance was intended for some secondary schools, speculated to be around 50 among the 400, to be designated English Medium (EMI) Secondary Schools. Rebounds were violent in 1997. After an appeal exercise from marginal cases, the number was set at 114 secondary schools [B1]. By sheer number, the vacancies they could hold will reach 38% of the student population in 1998 (with the total Secondary One population hitting 77,000) as against a projected 33% suitability match. With further appeals of individual students through the Equal Opportunity Commission [S1], and the subsequent compromising mechanism [S2] offered by the then Education Department in the academic year 1998/99, these English medium secondary schools now hold over 42% of the relevant population, calculated to have a holding capacity of 32,340 students in each year.

With the benefit of hindsight, the implementation of mandatory conversion of Anglo-Chinese secondary schools to employ CMI in 1998 has triggered significant unintended effects, and has jeopardized the self-improvements effort of a number of good schools [B2]. Some were mandated to give up their good practice of using English as the medium of instruction in selected subjects and to switch to CMI [D3]. Some others were mandated to re-engineer so as to provide an English medium learning environment [D4] for their students from the non-English speaking lower class communities. Lowered language ability of subsequent student intake imparted new challenge to schools facing the new mandate [O1, T1] but warranted easier life for those EMI schools [T2] that drain from catchments of elites used to supply the now CMI schools [O2].

Middle class parents prefer EMI schools [O3]. They associate good academic output with EMI schools [O4]. Believing that the opportunity for success is higher if their kids are affiliated with schools enjoying high statistical output, EMI schools become the goal for parents who plan for their children [O5]. These parents realize that going to schools with peers of good family background may maximize intangible benefits of greater historical resources such as networking with successful alumni [O6]. Some made leeway for transfer to EMI schools after the Secondary Places Allocation exercise [S3], and even in the subsequent year to Secondary Two [S4]. Some made a fuss taking personal interest in the arbitration through the Equal Opportunities Commission (an NGO), which ruled that, the administration exercise for appropriating Secondary One school places have discriminated against girls [I1]. Further arbitration on individual cases went on for more than one year. On the whole, EMI schools reap the cream by their sheer excessive capacity, leaving the rest to CMI schools. The polarized intake was never the original intention of the reform exercise [S5]. It is now an irreversible conception that parents consider and show vocally that elite students warrant the right to pre-empt places in secondary schools using English as the medium of instruction [R1, O7]. Together with the heightening emphasis on parental choices taking schools as a market [O8], intended policy would easily be distorted. Stoll, Bolam and Collarbone (2002) wrote,

Where policymakers sought to use market forces in the education process, evidence suggests that there has often been increased polarisation in school intakes. ¡K Clearly, the changing context of schooling creates particular challenges for school leaders.  (p.44)

Despite helping to ease learning for the majority of mediocre and the bottom cohort of secondary students with a mother tongue instruction environment, the Medium of Instruction policy hit an unintended Strange Attractor basin of consolidating the superiority of schools using English as the Medium of Instruction [S6]. With all new aided schools being mandated CMI, almost all prestigious schools are now EMI. CMI secondary schools were taken as second rate when primary school teachers make recommendation to their students for choice of secondary school during the Secondary School Places Allocation exercise [O9].

The arbitration is ongoing. In 2003, the Equal Opportunities Commission admits case of appeals accusing of boys being discriminated (girls in 1998) from equal opportunity of access to EMI schools in the Kwai Chung district by simple count of two more girls EMI schools than boys EMI schools [R2, I2, C2]. Primary school headteachers and school sponsors begin to fight for expanding the number of EMI schools in specific district to reach equal proportion across the territory, based on the equal opportunity principle for all students in all districts [R3, I3].

Now even EMI schools suffer because the Secondary Places Allocation system contains a randomizing mechanism. Students good at Chinese and Mathematics but weak in English could be allocated to these English Medium Schools even if they are expected to fail catching up with the instructions in class [C3, X1]. These are particularly true to immigrants from Mainland China who joined Hong Kong primary schools in Primary Five and have only two years of exposure to English as a subject [X2]. The Council of EMI schools established in 1998 strived hard to demand an English ability test to match students good at English Language to be placed into EMI schools [A2]. After five years of actual implementation, EMI schools are found advising students who cannot catch up with the class to seek places in CMI schools before the Secondary 3 [C4]. This certainly helps to sustain the myth of superiority in academic output in EMI schools [R4], and to reinforce a self-fulfilling prophesy in streaming recommendations by primary school teachers [I3]. With districts having a stable composition of secondary schools and after 5 years of experimentation, primary school teachers are quite apt in matching successful allocation with the language ability of the students [O10]. Even top rated CMI schools experience a slow decline of students¡¦ language ability spectrum in both English and Chinese Language [C5]. This is accompanied by the decline in birth rate and hence the annual student population.

CMI schools did fight back and look for opportunity to put their students back to a fair playfield with EMI school students [R5]. If the language of instruction policy loosens, there could be three options for switching from CMI to EMI [X3]. All public funded primary schools in Hong Kong are nominally Chinese Medium schools. The three options are therefore Secondary One when they change to a new school, Secondary Four when students choose their academic subjects embarking for the Hong Kong School Certificate Examination (HKCEE) and finally, for the selected 40% of successful students in HKCEE proceeding to Secondary Six for the preparation of the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination. Eleven CMI schools chose the switching at Secondary Four since 2001 [C6].

With a firm belief on the myth of superiority of EMI schools and full trust in parental choice for the best advantage of their children, EMI schools seek to pick the most capable students to their advantage [O11], behind the facade of language ability matching but this is undiscussable (Argyris, 1990). This is evident in the disproportionate under-representation of the non-Chinese speaking minorities such as the Indo-Pakistani children in the local EMI schools.

Medium of Instruction policy within one school <back to top >

There is wider consideration than a single centralized policy statement could embrace even within one school (not to mention the diverse context among the 400 secondary schools). Schools need to understand their own constraints, the impact of changes and ephemeral issues in the wider ecological setting (such as a loss of gender balance among Secondary one students in 2002 as a side effect of the language policy [C7]), and other contextual factors that shape the options available to them (a complexity perspective).

To explore for competitive edge where student intake could not be manipulated, the open-minded planners from CMI schools need to think beyond striking back the gap lost to EMI schools but rather, about how to make full advantage of unleashing the power of the mother tongue learning at the right time [C8] and running in progressively English enrichment exposures to prepare students for a switch, probably asynchronized switch with any cohort year as well.

 

Unintended Side Effects <back to top >

 

Mason (2000) avers that the stratification of secondary one students into five bands and the subsequent sorting of students in priorities into different schools according to their respective banding as unjustifiable from the perspective of Complexity Theory. Band One students are the cream. EMI schools reap Band Two students too under the 5 bands system. The shortage of critical mass of students capable of quality learning among schools that accommodate predominantly the lowest band students (Band Five) would never gain enough auto-catalytic momentum to achieve up to the standard of the norm. They are bound to underachieve whereas schools with predominantly Band One students continue to lead their students to higher levels of achievement. It was hoped that the reduction from 5 bands to 3 bands in 2001 helped alleviate the polarized intake pattern at the bottom end. The price was that many other schools would have an intake cohort with wider ability range. The change will be irreversible. Schools have to be prepared to cater for a student cohort of fluctuating learning diversity as well as a possibility of diverse learning needs.

 

Reshaping the Concept of Leading <back to top >

Instead of thinking of schools and organization as being stable, complexity theorists take a holistic, organismic and evolutionary view. In the preceding case study, I have considered the Medium of Instruction issue holistically as serious business for all stakeholders in the school ecological setting. There are continuous interactions at all levels, simultaneously and asynchronously. The iterative interactions are part of a giant network in a state of flux. (Sullivan, 1999) 

I mentioned little about fractal self-similarity but indeed each school is independently interacting within their respective ecological setting, including other schools; and each student is repeating similar decision-making process in choosing their academic pursuit path. I have focused attention to language ability, schooling history, and socio-economic status of the family of individual students as one dimension of identifying student level configurations. I have also focused attention to schools using student ability groups as another dimension of identifying school level configurations. From there, we could propose archetypes, namely, EMI schools which surely reap the cream [T1], EMI schools that take up students with borderline English capability [T2], CMI schools that attract better students and switch to EMI for senior secondary years [T3] and the remaining CMI schools [T4].

When would a bifurcation emerge? EMI schools formed their coalition in 1998 and displayed solidarity fighting for meritocratic fairness in allocation of Secondary One places depending on individual academic achievement and pass in English language ability test they proposed. From the complexity perspective, bifurcation emerges as the coalition splits. This might happen if they realize that the student cohort population declines from the peak of 81,450 for the 2001 Secondary One intake to a projection of 62,300 for the 2009 intake. The 32,340 holding capacity calculated for 1998 intake above will mean accommodating 52% of the relevant student population to EMI schools in 2009. Some EMI schools [T1 archetype] would remain unhurt but others [T2 archetype] would have to tolerate too many students not matching the English language capability these schools would like to see. If a language test they now support would end up with discriminating students for admission to these schools, T2 archetype may need to face classes reduction and subsequently the problem of teacher redundancy.

¡§Chaotic strategic management is flexible, reaches out, seeks harmony, and actively takes a wide view of the real world with all its surprises and twists¡¨ (Sullivan, 1999: p.417).

Final Reflection <back to top >

To enable positive feedback on the system itself, there should exist numerous interacting agents instead of isolated members bearing the same target, and that assessment of each individual on the importance of the target varies, readily influenced by the assessment of each other, and that any damping mechanism on pacifying the aroused issue proved ineffective. Schools have attracted a lot of political interest and mass media interest in any pluralistic and democratic society. The Medium of Instruction issue appears right for a discussion to probe into the complexity perspective.

Taking the school ecological setting as an open system far from equilibrium, and accepting that organizations are in continuing evolution, irreversibility ensues; and that is where reforms consolidate. ¡§Once a change takes place, the system is never the same again. Only fragments of the past are retained into the future. The past as a unitary whole is lost with every evolution.¡¨ (Sullivan, 1999: p.412)

Large-scale school improvement efforts often suffer from big mistakes assuming linear cause and result mandates. Despite that formal hierarchical organizational structure is ubiquitous and is fit for the purpose of routine operations, there are shadow operations behind any organizations. Reformers have not taken adequate consideration of the complexity of interactions among stakeholders and hence stirred up resistance at various points. Some of these sources of resistance (Tse, 2003) are:

l           Existence of shadow leaders in an informal hierarchy, invested in diverted interests other than that of the organization¡¦s formal goals (Stacey, 1996)

l           The power of sub-cultures and anti-cultures (Elsmore, 2001) Shared interests of cliques are good examples.

l           Inadequate planning to cater for all different roles of participants, vide.,  Trailblazers, Pioneers, Settlers, Stay-at-homes, and Saboteurs (Schlechty, 1993). One step wrong, change facilitator would be pushing settlers and stay-at-homes into the camp of the saboteurs.

l           Lack of genuine consensus on weighed importance of a group decision (Lakomski 1987). Individuals return to their usual practices.

l           Espoused theories vs. Theories-in-use (Argyris, 1990: p.13; 1992, Chapter 20). It is the common ¡¥Change is good. You go first.¡¦ syndrome.

Chaos Theory seeks order in intricate, unusual, or odd patterns (Willower & Uline, 2001). It brings us new hope where the dominant organizational and management theories applied to educational administration fail. Griffiths et.al. (1991) explored the potential of Chaos Theory as an alternative to inform educational administration but asserted that because of the requirement of very precise measures on initial conditions in order to achieve predictable outcomes, the application of Chaos Theory to educational administration is limited.

Chaos is a metaphor and Chaos Theory opens up a rich platform for reflections upon unanticipated surprises in the management of schools and especially in the effort for schools improvement. I attempted to bridge this observation-based scientific theory to reach the family of organizational theories, namely, the Complexity Theories, so as to understand the school ecological settings as both a hierarchical stable system and a complex dynamic system. Unfortunately, organizational theories aim to gain theoretical understanding that offer limited guideline to managerial control. In fact, emphasis on self-organization and autopoiesis in Complexity Theories and Chaos Theory reject any tendency towards teleology.

Management theories aim to control the deployment of resources within the context of the school ecological settings. To lead is to create meanings through the formulation of vision, and to manipulate implementations through locally acceptable channels. ¡§¡K Schools used both mechanistic and organic design options, but ¡K as task complexity increases, the organic type becomes more adequate¡¨ (Meyer, 2002 [iv]

). Here I proposed employing the Contingency Theory as the ultimate strategic guide for decision-makings against the backdrop of understanding nurtured by the family of Complexity Theories.

As for the next step, this practitioners-centered perspective of an umbrella theory may need further development into an integrated comprehensive checklist to define the probable boundary for analysis and windows for exploring the fecundity of open-minded creative design of alternative management approaches. Do we need vigorous criteria to test for the validity of strange attractors? Could we fully identify and aggregate adequate linear causations to build up a map of configuration, stressing circular causation and contingency? And from a few common configurations, could we group just a limited number of possible constellations of strategies, structures, cultures, and other organizational attributes that are feasible in any environment into a few archetypes (Stacey, 2000: p.58)? And hence, increase our efficacy of strategic management on the schools ecological setting? This is obviously another long series of hard research work.

 

Reference

 

Argyris, Chris (1990).  Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning.   U.S.A.:Prentice Hall

Argyris, Chris (1992).  On Organizational Learning.  Great Britain: Blackwell

Beavis, Allan K. (1999).  Observing Educational Administrators: Paradoxical Reflections.  Journal of Educational Administration  37(1): 8-22.

Black, Janice A. and Sandra Edwards (2000).  Emergence of Virtual or Network Organizations: Fad or Feature.  Journal of Organizational Change Management  13(6): 567-576.  

Brooke-Smith, Robin (2001).   Seeking a New Agenda: Dynamical Systems Theory and Complexity Issues for School Effectiveness and Improvement.  paper presented to the 14th Annual ICSEI conference at Toronto, 5-9 Jan 2001   

Donaldson, Lex (editor) (1995).  Contingency Theory.  U.S.A.: Dartmouth  

Elsmore, Peter (2001).  Organisational Culture: Organisational Change?  Hampshire, England: Gower

Fitzgerald, Laurie A. and Frans M. van Eijnatten (2002).   Chaos Speak: A Glossary of Chaordic Terms and Phrases.  Journal of Organizational Change Management    15(4): 412-423.

Griffiths, Daniel E.; Ann Weaver Hart and Billie Goode Blair (1991).  Still Another Approach to Administration: Chaos Theory.  Educational Administration Quarterly  27(3): 430-451. [HYF2]

 

Kellert, Stephen H. (1993).  In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredicatable Order in Dynamical Systems.    London: The University of Chicago Press  

Lakomski, Gabriele (1987).  Critical Theory and Educational Administration.  Journal of Educational Administration  25(1): 85-100. Winter

Mason, Mark (2000).  Against Banding of Hong Kong Schools: An Argument from Complexity Theory.  17th Annual Conference of the Hong Kong Educational Research Association.  Hong Kong 

Meyer, Heinz-Dieter (2002).  The New Managerialism in Educational Management: Corporatization or Organizational Learning?  Journal of Educational Administration  40(6): 534-551.

Morel, Benoit and Rangaraj Ramanujam (1999).  Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: The Dynics of Organizations as Adaptive and Evolving Systems.  Organization Science  10(3): 278-393.  

Morgan, Gareth (1997).  Images of Organization.  Thousand Oaks, U.S.A.: SAGE Publications, Inc.  

Owens, James (1981).  A Reappraisal of Leadership Theory and Training.  Personnel Administrator  26(11): 75-99.  

Schlechty, Phillip C. (1993).  On the Frontier of School Reform with Trailblazers, Pioneers and Settlers.  Journal of Staff Development  14(4): 46-51.   Fall

Stacey, Ralph D. (1996).  Complexity and Creativity in Organisations  San Francisco, U.S.A.: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Stacey, Ralph D. (2000).  Strategic Management and  Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity  (first published 1993)   England: Prentice-Hall  

Stoll, Louise; Raymond Bolam and Pat Collarbone (2002).  Leading for Change: Building Capacity for Learning.  In Leithwood, K, & P. Hallinger (Eds.)  Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Part One   Chapter 2  (pp.41-73).   Norwell, MA: Kluwer  Academic Publishers

Sullivan, Terence J. (1999).  Leading People in a Chaotic World.  Journal of Educational Administration  37(5): 408-423.    [HYF3]

 

Tse, Pak Hoi Isaac (2003).  The Rise of Chaos in Schools at the Advent of a Knowledge Society.  Paper presented at the ICSEI 2003 Conference in Sydney   

Willower, Donald J and Cynthia L Uline (2001).  The Alleged Demise of Sience: A Critical Inquest.  Journal of Educational Administration  39(5): 455-471.

---

Note

[i] Morrison, F. (1991) The Art of Modeling Dynamic Systems. New York: Wiley

[ii]

¡§Charodic¡¨ is an amalgamation of the terms ¡¥chaos¡¦ and ¡¥order¡¦ signifying the fact that the two seemingly disparate properties of experience are so thoroughly interpenetrated that neither can exist without the other. (p.414  in Fitzgerald and Eijnatten (2002)  Chaos Speak: A Glossary of Chaordic Terms and Phrases.  Journal of Organizational Change Management  15(4): 412-423.) 

[iii] Child, John (1972) Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice.  Sociology  6:1-22.  included as Chapter 20 in Donaldson (1995).

[iv]

abstracted from Rowan, B. (1995) The Organizational Design of Schools. in Bacharach, S.B. et.al. (Eds.) Images of Schools: Structures and Roles in Organizational Behaviour. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press. pp.11-42.

---

  [HYF1] Not comply with the APA styles.

  [HYF2] If put month of publishing, then all other references should follow this.

  [HYF3] ???