A letter from a teacher. “Second Order Change” sounds eerily like “creative destruction.” Wipe out everything that is and start over. See what happens. Then do it again:
Things are heating up again in Baltimore County. The teachers association just filed a grievance against the school district. Here is the link to the article in the paper here.
In the meantime, our superintendent went down to Washington yesterday to receive an award from President Obama with nine other superintendents. I feel like we are under an alien invasion. We always had a strong history of collaboration; our teachers once wrote our curriculum in summer workshops and it was even sold across the country. Long gone now. And of course, the coordinator of libraries is gone. They got rid of her by eliminating her position. All the camaraderie is gone. As a 29 year veteran, and the daughter of a 36 year veteran I feel more than sad. Everyone is paranoid and worried about their jobs.
The big buzz word here now is “Second Order Change” – basically tearing everything down so there is no going back and starting anew. Have you heard this term? I say beware Second Order Change.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Ah, a new buzz word.
LikeLike
A Google search shows this:
https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=Xw#hl=en&q=second+order+change+in+education
It sounds like yet another horrible idea by “reformers” who intend to push through whatever crazy idea they have; facts have no place here.
LikeLike
susannunes: “Second Order Change” is another word for—
Refusing to learn from the mistakes of the past and repeating them. Read the posting by Lindy and look closely at the SOC-it-to-me dissing of smaller class size. This is word salad in search of $tudent $ucce$$.
Think I’m exaggerating? I took the following from Lindy’s post [after doing one of those old fashioned ‘failed strategies’ of double checking via the link that the quotation is accurate—silly me!]:
“A teacher can be just as impersonal and uncaring toward 15 students as toward 30 students; simply reducing class size will not change that teacher’s behavior.”
This looks good on paper if you don’t spend a second or two thinking about it. Rheeally! If, that is, you are uncoupled from the actual world and people living in it. Really!
But for the vast majority of people who have worked in a classroom this consists of words strung together for the superficial effect of looking good to the BBC and politicians and edufrauds and the like rather than making any sense.
Of course, for the rheephorm-minded this makes a lot of ₵ent₵ because they are trying to deprofessionalize the teaching profession, eliminate public education, and gain acceptance for a two-tiered education system that gives the children of the favored few an old-fashioned well rounded enriched education and for everyone else, well, training in docility and low-level skills.
SOC seems to be a excellent example of how $tudent $ucce$$ feet will, sooner or later, find rheephormers’ shoe-shaped mouths.
😎
LikeLike
I don’t think “docility” can be force fed into the students of today.
LikeLike
Sad changes that the writer describes. But I would say, second order change has also been used to describe positive change , for example, leading a school or school district from a culture of isolation to,a culture of collaboration for the purpose of supporting student learning. I would say that whether second order change is positive or negative is dependent on the purpose and intention of the initiative. Sadly enough, the current reform agenda is in the latter category.
LikeLike
I surely never heard that term, but it felt like that was what was occurring. We lived with constant cognitive dissonance for the past 10 years. The older teachers really “felt” it. But now the younger ones are positive that things have changed for the worse. I thought at first that it was a little paranoia experienced by every teacher when reaching a certain age, but it is hitting everyone.
They began changing the curriculum bit by bit, leaving out science and social studies other than the bare bones parts — no mor Sim City, Econ Zoo, shared experiments/labs — no more teacher collaboration other than CORE classes. It was obvious that a movement was increasingly changing our lives, first like a glacier, then a flood, waiting for a tsunami …
Most of us have retired. Those that had been in the system since the 1980s- 1990s. We were removed from positions of leadership and them rated poorly for lack of leadership. The y startedvusing the Praxis at colleges and then our district threw it in as our evaluation system. The trouble is, our principal used it as she pleased. She was great at evaluating on assumption.
But it did feel like a Second Order Change. Nothing made sense any longer. Testing became more and more the focus. Our supt was disgusted. He retired in 2003 and moved to Colorado because he felt this change was wrong-minded. Nothing was ever the same after he left.
It seems that the idea is to shove the teachers with tenure and experience out the door and to replace them with temporary young teachers that had to march lockstep or be fired before their second year ended. Turnover was huge in the younger grades since the more experienced teachers were in the intermediate grades (school k-4).
Now we sit back and cry. Finny thing … They want older teachers as subs andentors. Even thevlical university seeks experienced teachers to mentor the younger ones. But, they don’t want to offer a decent wage. They want our input … As long ascitvis free or minimum wage. Nice, eh??
LikeLike
From the Baltimore Sun article: “The Common Core standards hold real promise, but the implementation is going to be key,” Raabe said. The county’s teachers, he said, are “standing up for children and saying, ‘We need time.'”
The National Education Association and the Baltimore County teachers union support the Common Core but are concerned about how local school systems are putting it in place.
State and local leaders were given financial incentives under the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top competition to adopt and put in place the Common Core this school year. Assessments that match the Common Core will be field-tested this spring and then be given to all students in the spring of 2015.
Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-co-teacher-grievance-20131119,0,4440262.story#ixzz2lqvKwGd9
The NEA and the Baltimore County teachers union support the Common Core and therein lies a big problem.
LikeLike
My Google search yielded this description of “second order change” from The National Academy for Academic Leadership: Leadership & Institutional Change. I would beware the “irreversible” aspect.
First- and Second-Order Change
◦ First-order change is doing more – or less – of something we are already doing. First-order change is always reversible.
◦ Second-order change is deciding – or being forced – to do something significantly or fundamentally different from what we have done before. The process is irreversible: once you begin, it is impossible to return to the way you were doing before.
The characteristics of first- and second-order change
• First-order change
◦ Adjustments within the existing structure
◦ Doing more or less of something
◦ Reversible
◦ Restoration of balance (homeostasis)
◦ Non-transformational
◦ New learning is not required
◦ Old story can still be told
• Second-order change
◦ New way of seeing things
◦ Shifting gears
◦ Irreversible
◦ Often begins through the informal system
◦ Transformation to something quite different
◦ Requires new learning
◦ New story is told
References
• Bateson, Gregory. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Dutton, 1979.
• Bergquist, William. The Modern Organization: Mastering the Art of Irreversible Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
http://www.thenationalacademy.org/ready/change.html
LikeLike
Here’s an explanation of First Order and Second Order Change in education.
Second Order Change cannot be changed once it has taken hold, according to the information at this link …
http://www.thenationalacademy.org/ready/change.html
LikeLike
Hi, “Second order change” is a term from organizational development literature — it’s been around since the 1980’s, coming from established scholars of organizations such as Karl Weick and Jean Bartunek. It refers to a move from incrementalism (first order change) to a challenge to foundational assumptions undergirding organizational structure, practices, and individual behavior.
Education reformers have picked up the lingo — here is a summary from the book “A Decade of Reform: A Summary of Research Findings on Classroom, School and District Effectiveness in Washington State” by J.T. Fouts, 2003. I took this from:
http://www.bercgroup.com/1st-and-2nd-order-change.html
1st and 2nd Order Change
________________________________________
The driving force of contemporary reform efforts is the need to redefine the quantity and quality of student learning. Since reform efforts began, researchers have conducted a number of studies to describe the nature of the changes being made in the schools and to identify the impact of those changes on student learning. Currently, the body of research and consistent findings are enlightening, and show an emerging coherent picture of successful reform. Goodman (1995) wrote about “change without difference,” and identified top-down, technical, ameliorative responses as first order changes. School systems have implemented numerous first order changes. Examples of these include changes in school and administrative structures, schedules and class sizes. First order changes have extended to the classroom level as well. Teachers have been trained in an abundance of specific instructional strategies such as writing lesson objectives on the board, managing cooperative learning groups, and asking higher-order thinking questions. These efforts are usually accompanied by teacher skepticism, subversion, and questions such as, “Why are we doing this?” This is a valid question – decades of reform have passed and students are still not meeting achievement goals. In many schools, so much attention is directed to outward changes that the fundamental reasons for change are ignored.
Recalling Michaels (1988) once again, “The clear message of reform is that we need to examine our basic philosophical beliefs about teaching, learning, the nature of human beings, and the kinds of environments that maximize growth for teachers and students alike” (p. 3). Changes that bring meaningful and lasting reform to the school and classroom alter the underlying philosophical beliefs driving practice, and are described by Goodman (1995) as second order changes. In their book on school restructuring, Ellis and Fouts (1994) argue that second order changes are required in order for educational reforms to be accomplished and sustained over the long term. According to Fouts (2003):
There is evidence that one of the reasons schools remain unchanged is that the reforms or changes have been superficial in nature and/or arbitrary in their adoption. Teachers and schools often went through the motions of adopting the new practices, but the changes were neither deep nor long-lasting. In other words, the outward manifestations of the changes were present, but the ideas or philosophy behind the changes were either not understood, misunderstood, or rejected. Consequently, any substantive change in the classroom experience or school culture failed to take root. The illusion of change is created through a variety of activities, but the qualitative experience for students in the classroom remains unchanged when the ideas driving daily practice remain unchanged.
In the educational reform research work of Baker (1998), Fouts, Stuen, Anderson, and Parnell (2000), Mork (1998), and Van Slyke (1998), schools were asked to identify the focus of their improvement efforts. Many schools focused on cosmetic first order changes, while others shifted their philosophical understandings about the nature of teaching and learning and experienced second order changes. The research revealed that schools have significantly better chances for achievement gains when, rather than focusing on implementing specific strategies, their improvement efforts addressed basic concepts of how students should be taught and collaborative culture in the school and classroom. Second order changes in successful schools incorporate three factors: (1) a fundamental change in ideas about and actions toward student achievement, (2) instructional enhancement focused on refining pedagogy, and (3) collaborative support that replaces a culture of isolation with one of extensive partnership (Baker, 1998).
When strategies are outward manifestations of underlying philosophies, deep change in school culture and in classroom teaching and learning can occur. The examples shown in Figure 1 are changes that appear frequently in research around school reform. When educators adopt new ideas about instruction (second order changes), they might select strategies (first order changes) to put those ideas into practice. Together, first and second order changes help provide a qualitatively different experience for students and raise achievement.
Figure 1. First Order Changes and Corresponding Second Order Changes
First Order Change (strategies)
Smaller class
Site-based councils
Ninety-minute teaching blocks
Small Learning Communities
Teaching teams with common planning
⇒
⇒
⇒
⇒
⇒ Second Order Change (philosophies)
Changing relationships and teaching philosophies
Collaborative ownership
Extended teaching and learning opportunities
New interactions/relationships
Coordinated focused curriculum & instruction
Note: From “A decade of reform: A summary of research findings on classroom, school, and district effectiveness in Washington State,” by J.T. Fouts, 2003, Seattle Pacific University. Adapted with permission.
To illustrate the difference between first and second order changes, consider the specific strategy of reducing class size. Research shows that students benefit from an educational environment in which they receive personal attention from the teacher and individualized instruction that meets their needs. Students are able to develop closer relationships with an adult and with their peers when class size is small. However, as desirable as reducing class size may be, the strategy does not ensure that the relationship between the teacher and students in the classroom will change, nor does it ensure that diverse or more appropriate teaching methods will be used. A teacher can be just as impersonal and uncaring toward 15 students as toward 30 students; simply reducing class size will not change that teacher’s behavior. The philosophy and ideas driving teacher actions in the classroom must be replaced.
Likewise, research conducted by the Consortium on Chicago School Research (Bryk, Nagaoka, & Newmann, 2000; Newmann, Bryk, & Nagaoka, 2001; Newmann, Lopez, & Bryk, 1998) demonstrated that no teaching strategy ensured students would face “high quality intellectual demands.” The point is not that instructional strategies or specific curricula are not important, but rather by themselves they appear to be insufficient to increase student learning. What the research does strongly suggest is that such strategies must be accompanied by teacher ownership, understanding, and acceptance of a new philosophy of schooling.
In general, first order changes may be met with less resistance because they do not challenge an educator’s fundamental beliefs. Second order changes require teachers to become learners, to think deeply about their practice, and to adopt new and often challenging ideas about their role in the classroom. These philosophical changes could engender some resistance initially, because they are deeply personal in nature. However, when educators are provided a safe and inspiring process and commit to aligning beliefs and instructional practices with the direction of reform efforts, classroom teaching and learning achieve success.
As you will see with the STAR Process, all observations are always conducted at the Indicator or Component levels; not the Strategy level. The purpose of this is to help participants remain focused on the bigger idea behind the strategies that we see manifested (the Second Order Change).
References
• Baker, D. B., (1998). The implementation of alternative assessment procedures and Washington State reform. Seattle, WA: Washington School Research Center, Seattle Pacific University.
• Bryk, A. S., Nagaoka, J. K., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Chicago classroom demands for authentic intellectual work: Trends from 1997-1999. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
• Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. S. (2002). Trusting schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Ellis, A. K., & Fouts, J. T. (1994). Research on school restructuring. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
• Fouts, J.T. (1999). School restructuring and student achievement in Washington state: Research findings on the effects of House Bill 1209 and school restructuring on western Washington schools. Washington School Research Center. Seattle Pacific University, Seattle.
• Fouts, J.T., Stuen, C., Anderson, M.A., & Parnell, T. (2000). The reality of reform: Factors limiting the reform of Washington’s elementary schools. Seattle, WA: Washington School Research Center. Seattle Pacific University.
• Fouts, J.T. (2003). A decade of reform: A summary of research findings on classroom, school, and district effectiveness in Washington State. Seattle, WA: Washington School Research Center. Seattle Pacific University.
• Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective. Harvard Educational Review, 2, 1-5.
• Mork, C.R. (1998). Site-based management and teacher perceptions of restructuring outcomes in Washington State. (Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University, 1998).
• Newmann, F. M., Lopez, G., & Bryk, A. S. (1998). The quality of intellectual work in Chicago schools: A baseline report. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
• Van Slyke, R. (1998). Effects of school reform legislation: The relationship of student achievement gains and degree of restructuring on select Western Washington schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University.
LikeLike
Thank you for this. It is thorough and helpful.
LikeLike
I feel like this is what is happening in many of my neighboring districts. They have thrown out everything they were currently using and have to search for materials on-line. The modules they find can be very confusing for all parties involved from the kids to the substitute teachers unfamiliar with the material. Many are struggling with this. Many teachers have stopped teaching social studies and science in the elementary grades so that they can focus exclusively on math and ela. I think this is so wrong. Science and social studies build incredible amounts of background knowledge for children. What a mess we are in!
LikeLike
These ideas go back to the previous century under Hegel. Recently, it has been caused “disaster capitalism”. “Change agents” play a big role. An excellent source on these ideas in education is BK Eakman’s “The Cloning of the American Mind” a vital primer for all activists in education.
LikeLike
Not having heard of this terminology prior to this, as I said earlier, I experienced this and “felt” these precise changes were occurring. Those who wouldn’t/couldn’t buy into the changes are eventually worn down and shoved out. Some of this information posted seems to imply that the changes are “better”. I don’t resist some changes, but I do resist ramrod, forceful demands to “agree or leave”.
LikeLike
Bercgroup.com will give you more info on this subject than you will want to know. Public schools are continuing to be targeted, but then we know that.
LikeLike
Student fidgeting wildly in seat, viciously waving arm and hand held up by other arm and hand (is the arm and hand holding up the first arm a “second order” arm and hand?), pleading to the teacher: “I know, I know, I know. . . ”
Finally the teacher gives in “Okay, Billy, what’s the answer?”
Billy: “You know when you go to the store and buy a penny candy and give the clerk a dime and you get back a nickel and four pennies. . . (Billy smiling smuggly), the nickel and four pennies are “second order change!! You know change from change!!”
LikeLike
In this context, second order change means the destruction of the neighborhood public school.
It means the scapegoating of teachers for things they have no control over.
It means the end of tenure, seniority and defined-benefit pensions.
It means the transformation of teaching into temporary, at-will employment.
It means the end of teacher unions as anything other than dues-collection agencies and co-managers of destructive, half-baked policies.
It means the end of professional autonomy for educators.
It means the monetization of students and their personal information.
It means high stakes tests as curriculum.
It means the demise of music, art, dance, drama, physical education, debate and other enrichments for all but the most privileged students.
It means the end of local, democratic control of school districts.
It means turning over policy decisions to a small, incestuous groups of oligarchs.
It means the abuse and manipulation of the English language, and the permeation of lies and deception throughout all discourse about education.
It means the hostile takeover of a precious public resource, and the widespread diversion of public funds to private interests.
It means we’re all supposed to sit down, shut up, do our (tedious, highly-surveilled, precarious, poverty wage) jobs, and smile while we do it.
LikeLike
Thank you, Michael, for your excellent observation.
LikeLike
Don’t be consumed by the “irreversibility” claim. It’s a scare tactic which plays off the reality that, “There is nothing permanent except change.” However, what is good and right and just can be restored and will prevail in a democracy with a determined populace.
Unite with like-minded people and ALWAYS exercise your right to VOTE, in every election.
And do the research on candidates and think critically about who you are voting for! Don’t fall for bogus claims from people in both parties who represent billionaires. Those politicians have established different rules for the oligarchy. They have even given monetary rewards to corporate leaders for their nefarious business practices, instead of charging them with legal infractions, as evidenced by the economic crash and the government bailouts that resulted in white color criminals receiving huge cash bonuses. They really don’t care about common people. Their aims are to promote their preferred agendas and make sure the gravy train continues to stop at their own doors.
LikeLike
Here’s how Baltimore Public Schools defines 2nd order change:
Click to access Overview.pdf
It does not appear this involves “Wipe out everything that is and start over. See what happens. Then do it again”.
I suspect there still would be school buildings, computers, class rooms, a teacher union, principals, teachers and students. There probably would be some changes in the process of learning and teaching. There might be new collaborations and new learning opportunities for students.
LikeLike
There are third and fourth order changes too.Deep psychological changes in which the very nature of humanity is to be changed. Google it. It has nothing to do with acguuiring knowledge or skills, but is all about creating new Mankind devoid of Christianity .
LikeLike
Second order change is another invented slogan to create fear and hopelessness. It’s propaganda and dialectics. Read about the father of PR, Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. It’s psychological warfare. Ed reform is nihilistic dialectic combat. One cannot just view the surface and react, often the surface skirmish is 2 sides of the same coin putting on a show for the public, read about propaganda….
LikeLike
Here is the meaning of Second Order Change:
Click to access First%20Order%20Second%20Order%20Change%20Explanation.pdf
Couple that with “Transfomative Learning:
“Transformative learning theory is the process of ‘perspective transformation’ with three
dimensions: psychological (changes in understanding of the self), convictional (revision
of belief systems), and behavioral (changes in lifestyle)…[or]…Transformative learning
involves experiencing a deep, structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings,
and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically and irreversibly alters our way
of being in the world. Such a shift involves our understanding of ourselves and our self-
locations; our relationships with other humans and with the natural world; our
understanding of relations of power in interlocking structures of class, race and gender;
our body awarenesses, our visions of alternative approaches to living; and our sense of
possibilities for social justice and peace and personal joy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning.
Link that with Community Education:
For a compresive understanding of Community Education go to:
http://americandeception.com/
type “Feld” in the search box and read
“An Expose Community Education”.
LikeLike
Doesn’t it really mean a forced weeding out of the old ideas and after practicing the new ideas, forcing compliance and a buy-in by the players. Once those who don’t buy in are gone, there will be less frustration for those pushing the deform if education and they will be able to carry on undermining developmental learning and careers in education. Students will be spewed out on the assembly line. No one know (or says) what those who don’t make the cut will go or how they will survive. Once there are no safety nets for those who don’t “make it”, I suppose they will starve to death. Hmm. Thank God I will be dead before that occurs!
LikeLike