Change Theory and the Teach Your Passions Debacle
German psychologist Kurt Lewin held that social conflict could be resolved through the promotion of a planned change that would ultimately shift the makeup of the organization as well as the paradigms of the individuals within the organization by heightening their awareness of their role/identity within the group and within society as a whole. This approach to change, if it is to be successful, happens in three stages: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Of course, according to Lewin, before this could happen, the individual who wishes to be the promoter of this planned change must have an understanding of the nature of the change process, recognizing that for change to happen, the forces that are maintaining the organization’s status quo must be disrupted by adding to the forces that favor change or taking away from the forces that oppose it. Furthermore, this promoter of change must be aware of the role group dynamics play in the maintaining as well as the transformation of the organization; in other words, for change to actually happen, it must take place at the group level as group behaviors impact group structures which affect individual behaviors (and not the other way around as it is axiomatic that individuals capitulate to group pressures). Finally, the promoter must reflect on the organization’s situation, taking into consideration the voices and perspectives of those who will be affected by the change. Now, with all of these factors and forces in mind, the promoter of change can begin Lewin’s initial step of change: unfreezing. This is when the promoter endeavors to motivate the members of the organization to buy in, even contribute, to the disruption of the organization’s equilibrium. This means the members must be convinced that the old behaviors that were characteristic of the original structure must be unlearned and new behaviors, the product of the new structure, be embraced. Next, during the “moving” stage of Lewin’s model, the organization must begin to lessen the forces that were maintaining the status quo so that the forces that advance change can be accentuated. During this step, the members of the organization must clearly see the change and how it is an improvement from the former status quo; otherwise, they will quickly revert back to the original equilibrium state. Finally, the change is to be made permanent through a “refreezing” process by making this change the “new equilibrium,” by facilitating new behaviors that reinforce the transformation.
In 2014, when the Common Core Standards had just been written and ratified at the Federal and State levels for math and English Language Arts but the assessment was still being constructed and beta tested, I was part of a team that was tasked to introduce these new standards to the rest of the staff at a mid-year inservice meeting. As the team, made up of fellow teachers and administrators, planned how to get a group of teachers who were predominantly veterans in the education field to embrace a entirely new pedagogical paradigm, we came to the realization that this transition to new teaching standards, which were, at the time, somewhat nebulous and without an end of the year standardized assessment to support accountability, could be an opportunity for school-wide transformation.
The Staff Inservice began with an activity called “Catharsis with Cody” (that’s my real name) where I led a staff-wide brainstorming session as I asked the audience to shout out all of the academic programs they had been involved in or asked to implement over the past ten years, which were many. As they were being named, I quickly recorded them on a large dry-erase board. Once there was no more room on the board for me to write, I asked the audience to candidly contribute an emotion they associated with each of the programs listed. As we went through this process, it became apparent that the programs that had a positive corresponding emotion were created/spearheaded by that high school’s staff and the negative emotions correlated with programs that were mandated by the district or the state to implement. We then moved onto another activity where the staff was asked to tri-fold a blank piece of paper so there would be three columns. On the left column, we asked the teachers to write down the attributes of their particular students whom they see everyday in their class: their personalities, interests, strengths, weakness, etc.. Then, on the right column, the teachers were to list the characteristics of their college/professional experience, when they were most passionate about their discipline: what they were assigned to read, to write, the format of discussions, the nature of their relationship with their professor. Finally, the teachers were then challenged, to write down, on the middle column, two activities they already do and 2 more activities they would like to do to connect the students (whose characteristics are listed on the left side of their paper) with the subject matter that they were so passionate about when they were in college (the attributes listed on the right side.
The culmination of these activities (peppered with departmental/PLC discussions) was the execution of our team’s transformative idea: being that the Common Core ELA standards (at this time there were no Science or Social Studies standards) were so general, the teachers have an opportunity to revamp their curriculum, to teach their passion. All a teacher needed to do was submit a class description with an explanation how it tied in with the Common Core standards to the Assistant Principal of Instruction, and the students, upon receiving a packet with the pertinent information about the classes before preferencing, would select the classes piqued their interest. Understandably excited about this “Teach Your Passion” challenge, the teachers revised their respective courses of study so that they would reflect their passions and submitted them to the AP. And that’s as far as that idea went. Even though the administrative team endorsed “Teach Your Passion,” they did not follow through with their responsibilities when they realized that this would make creating a master schedule more difficult and leveling the classes a bit of a challenge-issues that could have been addressed before the “Teach Your Passion” idea was presented to the entire staff. In the end, the teachers were upset that the idea did not come to fruition.
What was evident throughout this escapade (in retrospect, of course) was that Lewin was correct when he pointed out that change could be initiated from the organization’s top, middle, or bottom, but could not succeed unless everyone participated actively and willingly. The “Teach Your Passion” proposal could have been a catalyst for a major cultural shift on campus for both the staff and the students, but because administration was not totally on board, it failed to be transformative. If I wished to be a promoter of change, I need to make certain before the “unfreezing” stage can commence that there is top to bottom buy in.