1

FBLA: System Analysis

18 hours
Brian Conway
Drake University
EDL 272: Organizational Systems
Elaine Smith-Bright
October 4, 2014

2
The system analysis I am conducting is over is the Curriculum Implementation at the
Elementary Level in the Newton Community School District over the last five years. Several
initiatives have been implemented since the closing of an elementary school and the restructuring
of current facilities. The Newton Community School District formerly used five elementary
buildings to serve students in Kindergarten through sixth grade. Because of declining
enrollment, the district decided to restructure to four elementary buildings. The four elementary
buildings were broken up into pairs. Two elementary buildings serve students in Kindergarten
through third grade. The other two elementary buildings serve students in fourth through sixth
grade. The decision five years ago was made to close down the fifth elementary school.
Emerson Hough Elementary has since reopened in a different capacity and is now used to house
the administrative offices as well as transitional preschool.
Curriculum used at the elementary level has undergone various changes over the last five
years. Five years ago, the district adopted a new research-based math curriculum, Everyday
Mathematics. Last year, the district decided to adopt and implement a new reading curriculum as
well. The program is called Wonders and is produced by the publishing company McGraw Hill.
The program implementation at a systems level with these two programs has been conducted in
slightly different ways. I am conducting an analysis of how each program was implemented and
improvements that should be considered in the future.

Implementation of the Math Curriculum

When the Newton Community School District decided to adopt a new math curriculum, it
considered many different avenues. After careful research and referrals from other districts, the
district decided to adopt Everyday Mathematics. The district Curriculum Director set up a

3
situation to allow for training of teachers before the program was fully implemented. This was
done in three different phases. After the curriculum was chosen in the spring, each school in the
district had to designate five mentor teachers for the beginning of what was referred to as Phase
One. These teachers would be responsible for going to observe the Ankeny Community School
District twice before the year was up to get a glimpse of what Everyday Mathematics was all
about. During these trainings, teachers had the chance to observe and talk with teachers in
Ankeny about specifics with the program since they were in year two of their own
implementation.
Phase Two began at the beginning of the next school year. This involved the mentor
teachers taking their learning of the new curriculum and teaching this curriculum separate of the
rest of the teachers in their building. They were to pilot the program and test out the
implementation process. These mentor teachers would work through the curriculum and meet
with other mentor teachers in the district once a month. During those monthly meetings, mentor
teachers were able to talk through successes and areas for improvement. Mentor teachers were
also provided the opportunity to go back to Ankeny two more times to observe and talk through
the process. Another key component of Phase Two was the hiring of an Instructional Coach.
This position was designed as a future resource for teachers for anything related to the new math
curriculum. The Instructional Coach was given the opportunity to attend conferences in and out
of state to help in the process of implementing our new curriculum.
Phase Three took place the following school year. This was when full implementation
went into effect in all of the elementary buildings. The mentor teachers were in year two of the
curriculum and were able to help educate the teachers who were in their first year during
professional development opportunities. The Instructional Coach in the district was also there to

4
support teachers in any way possible. Before the year began, grade level teams were given time
to make rubrics that would align to assessed items in the curriculum. This was done on some of
the professional development days right before school started. This allowed all buildings to be
held to some level of consistency.
One of my first goals was to analyze the different Laws of Systems Thinking that were
present in in the implementation of Everyday Mathematics. When the district first adopted
Everyday Mathematics, there was a shift in ideology of how mathematics needed to be taught in
our school district. This was a change for students, teachers, and parents. Because of this new
style of learning, I believe there was the aspect of The cure can be worse than the disease. The
disease that plagued our district was that we were teaching mathematics in a way that did not
promote higher-level thinking. Teachers focused on the rote memorization of facts and
algorithms and not enough on real world application. Our scores had flat lined and in some
cases, decreased. The cure was Everyday Mathematics. Early on in the program, the cure did
become worse than the disease. Students had problems adjusting to instruction. There was a
definite learning curve for teachers as well not unlike learning a foreign language. The result of
this was that not all teachers bought into the program. Because the teachers did not fully
understand the program and it was different than their own mental model of how math should be
taught, barriers to success had to be systematically brought down. Parents also became frustrated
and expressed displeasure with the program because the new material being taught did not match
up with how they knew how to do mathematics. This led to a feeling of inadequacy because they
did not know how to help their children with some of the homework. To add on to concern and
frustration heard around the district, math scores on the Iowa Assessment decreased from the
previous year. This though is not uncommon as students are adjusting to new terminology of a

5
curriculum. Scores have shown a steady increase since that first year of implementation though.
With the help of an administration that did not waver from our long-term goals, we made it
through the first year of the cure not exactly curing the disease.
Another law that played out with the implementation of the math curriculum was that
Cause and effect are not closely related to time and space. With the implementation of this
program, we did not see immediate improvements in student test scores. Because new
instruction and terminology often takes time to filter through, we did not see score improvement
in the first year. The scores that came back looked very similar to previous district scores. Since
then, the district has seen a steady increase in test scores and the program is something that the
district feels will pay dividends if Iowa adopts the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
The last major law of systems thinking that was present with this implementation process
was You can have your cake and eat it too- but not at the same time. This law applies because
the district was looking for a curriculum that was research-based, highly interactive, aligned to
the Common Core, and required students to use higher order thinking to solve real world
problems. The district accomplished its goal of finding a curriculum that encompassed all of
those qualities. Even though the curriculum choice yielded positive results, buy-in from teachers
was hard to accomplish in some cases. Unfortunately, we werent able to see an immediate spike
in test scores. Eventually, the scores did improve. But in a profession that thrives on immediate
results, it was a hard pill to swallow for many teachers and administrators. Teacher buy-in came
when test scores improved as well. While the district was able to accomplish its goal of finding
the a curriculum to meet its needs, it did not solve all the problems immediately.
One of the next goals in analyzing the implementation of the math curriculum was to find
organizational learning disabilities present with the process. One of the first disabilities that

6
presented itself was The parable of the boiled frog. In the Everyday Mathematics curriculum,
there is less focus on basic facts and more of a focus on thinking through real-world problems.
This definitely hit a problem area that the district was wishing to focus on. In addition to this,
new algorithms are taught to students in which it takes time to set up graphic organizers. As
teachers were progressing through the program during the first year, there was little long-range
planning and thinking on how this would affect our students on the computation portion of the
Iowa Assessments. When teachers and administrators received test results back, they were up in
arms as to why students performed adequately on the Math Concepts portion of the test but very
poorly on the Computation portion. After looking back and reflecting on teaching practices and
the curriculum, the conclusion was made that we should modify the curriculum slightly to help
students be better prepared for this portion of the mathematics test.
Another learning disability that was present was The illusion of taking charge. The
reasoning behind this disability lies with the creation of the new instructional coach position.
When this position was created, the person hired was to become an expert in all things that
related to Everyday Mathematics. The Instructional Coach become very knowledgeable in the
different components and resources associated with the curriculum. The one major drawback to
the person hired was that he never had the chance to teach the curriculum. When full
implementation with all of the staff took place, credibility issues started to arise. The teachers
who were teaching the material quickly became the experts on the curriculum. Some teachers
started to lose respect for what the Instructional Coach was trying to do and that all played into
the feeling of The illusion of taking charge.
My next goal in analyzing the system of curriculum implementation at the elementary
level in our district was to look at archetypes that were present in this process. One archetype

7
that was present was Shifting the Burden. This archetype was seen throughout many levels in
this process. One of the main areas where this was seen was when growth did not show up
immediately. When this curriculum was adopted, teachers were instructed to teach the
curriculum with validity and fidelity. Teachers were told to stick to the curriculum because it
aligned with the Common Core and featured many interactive and hands-on activities. When
growth did not show right away, teachers were quick to blame the program and others for
wanting to adopt the program. Instead of reflecting back on teaching practices and taking a hard
look at whether each teacher did their best to teach with validity and fidelity, some educators
tried to deflect negativity coming their way. Parents were also quick to shift the burden when it
came to achievement. Because some parents were not comfortable with the new material, they
were less inclined to help with homework and deflected blame onto the teachers.
The second major archetype that was seen in this implementation process was Success
to the Successful. Even though we did not experience the growth we wanted in the first year,
there was widespread optimism that growth would been seen in the near future. Because of this
thinking, the district spent a majority of its time and resources on the teaching of mathematics.
The end result of this was that less time was given to subjects such as science and social studies.
Time was shortened in many cases and professional development opportunities were spent
elsewhere. The expected success of Everyday Mathematics took time and effort away from other
subjects. These subjects were considered afterthoughts for the first few years of implementation.

Implementation of the Reading Curriculum

The Newton Community School District adopted the Wonders curriculum during the
2013-2014 school year. The implementation process of Wonders has been slightly different than

8
Everyday Mathematics. Because of the designation of the district as a District in Need of
Assistance, the reading curriculum implementation was not given the timetable that the math
curriculum was given. In the spring of 2013, a team of teachers was gathered to analyze and
study three different reading curriculums. All grade levels were represented on this team. Time
was given to carefully evaluate what each program had to offer. The Wonders curriculum won
the vote and implementation was set to begin the following school year.
When talking about the Laws of Systems Thinking present with this process, the law that
first needs examined is The easy way out usually leads back in. With the adoption of Wonders
came a whole new level of rigor not previously taught in our reading curriculum. Terminology
and questioning from teachers left many students confused. This led teachers to make
terminology easier and lead students in the right direction so that they were understanding
material easier. When substituting easier terminology from what was prescribed, teachers
thought they were setting their students up for success. When taking the weekly and unit tests
though, they quickly found out that students were confused again because the rigorous
terminology was being used to assess our students. In turn, teachers felt the need to
accommodate on weekly and unit tests. Eventually teachers realized an adjustment in teaching
practices was the only way to properly prepare students for the rigorous material. Teachers were
taking the easy way out and landing right back where they started.
Another systems law that was and still is present is that The cure is worse than the
disease. Because of the rigor that Wonders provides, the administration decided to use an
adjusted grading scale to measure and record grades. This was done because the district knew
that the cure would be worse than the disease. Wonders was to be the cure. The disease was poor
performance overall in the area of reading comprehension. Because of the rigor the curriculum

9
provided, student percentages on weekly and unit tests early on sent teachers into a panic.
Weekly test scores showed many students below proficiency and in need of remediation on a
variety of skills. Parents were then concerned with low percentages that were showing up for
online reporting. This gave the illusion that students were performing worse than in previous
years. An adjusted scale was created and shown to parents at conferences to help educate on the
material that their children were learning about in school. Parents were also made aware of the
rigor that the new curriculum presented and how it would take some time for students and
teachers to adjust. The adjusted scale is still used for reading and language arts in the second
year of implementation and will be reexamined at the end of the year to see if a shift back to a
standard scale is appropriate.
Another law of systems thinking that was present in the implementation process was
Faster is slower. When first asking teachers to implement the Wonders curriculum, the
administration asked that teachers use the pacing guide for weekly instruction. The
administration soon found out though that many problems were arising because they were asked
to go fast immediately. When first learning a program, it is important to take time to learn about
the program in order to effectively teach it. When implementing a program at the beginning of
the school year without prior training, teachers became overwhelmed with the amount of
material and task at hand. Peter Senge (2006) notes, Yet, virtually all natural systems, from
ecosystems to animals to organizations, have intrinsically optimal rates of growth. The optimal
rate is far less than the fastest possible growth (p. 62). This quote illustrates that the district was
going faster than the system would allow. The teachers in the district had so many options with
the curriculum that it was hard to determine what was most important to teach in a given week of
instruction. Because of this, the decision was made to go to a six-day cycle of instruction instead

10
of the five-day cycle the curriculum suggests. Even though five days is considered normal
speed, it was very fast for teachers just learning a program and being asked to do all assessments
online. When teachers were given an extra day of instruction, morale was boosted because the
task at hand was more manageable and they gained greater personal mastery of the material.
The next law of systems thinking that was very apparent was Cause and effect are not
closely related to time and space. With the new instruction and terminology that students were
getting, scores on weekly and unit assessments were sometimes discouraging. The district knew
that teachers were providing quality instruction with a research-based curriculum but the effect
of improved test scores was not evident right away. This was another reason for the adjusted
scale referenced above. Again, our district administration kept the long-term goals in the front of
everyones minds and we saw positive growth at the end of the school year with the curriculum.
The last law of systems thinking that is still present in the second year of implementation
is there is no blame. Because of the new terminology and teaching of reading in our district,
the teachers needed time to adjust some instructional practices. Low test scores were not
indicative of poor teachers in the district. The system of implementation lends itself to the idea
of there is no blame. When teachers were asked to be a part of this system of implementation,
administration knew that new learning would take place for teachers and students. Teachers
were not given ample time to prepare for instruction, students were not given time to adjust to
new terminology and teaching styles, and test scores started low. The administration was also
put into the position of making a decision in a timely fashion because of the state designation of
a District in Need of Assistance. This was the very definition of a systems problem. The
system was put into place and everyone involved had to make the best of the situation.

11
There were also organizational learning disabilities present when the implementation of
Wonders began. The first disability that showed up was I am my position. When the team of
teachers and administration was formed to decide on a new curriculum, there were different
viewpoints on what was most important in the adoption process. Unlike the last curriculum
adoption, the schools had been reconfigured and teachers took on new identities. Some teachers
came from the K-3 setting while others came from the 4-6 setting. Discussions of curriculum
often times had groups of teachers coming together to argue their point from the K-3 perspective
or the 4-6 perspective. This shows how personal interest and a viewpoint of looking out for
ones own position comes into play. Often times, these teachers were not all considering the
system as a whole and what would be the best curriculum district wide. This also refers to all of
the elementary teachers who did not teach reading at the elementary level. When professional
development opportunities were first designed, many non-reading teachers questioned why they
should be part of the process. If someone just teaches math and social studies, how does the
professional development apply to that person? This was the mindset that needed adjusted.
Administration had to educate the teachers and remind them of the greater purpose. By
reminding teachers how reading reaches into every curricular area, staff buy-in was
accomplished. The enemy is out there also ties into this idea. Science and social studies
teachers always were frustrated that students could not read informational text effectively. When
Wonders was adopted, informational text was a key component. By not buying into the
professional development opportunities right away, those teachers did not realize the enemy was
out there and we could effectively attack it together.
The next learning disability present was The illusion of taking charge. Much like the
math implementation, a new instructional coach was hired to focus on reading. Again, the

12
person hired did not have the chance to teach the curriculum before he came into the position.
This resulted in a loss of credibility. The person hired tried to become the expert in the
curriculum but was viewed as someone who was taking charge but not really an expert.
There were archetypes that showed up during the process of implementation as well. The
first archetype present was Success to the successful. This is the same archetype and situation
that the district experienced when they adopted the math curriculum. Because the focus was on a
program that just started to experience successful results, less time, money, and effort was
devoted to subjects such as social studies and science.
Shifting the burden was another archetype that showed up during this process. Because
teachers were asked to teach the curriculum with validity and fidelity, they did not feel that they
could deviate from those materials. When reports came back that showed little to no
improvement, the burden was shifted to the curriculum or people responsible for adopting the
curriculum. Some teachers climbed the ladder of inference too quickly and realized after we
accumulate more data that we were on the right track and the program was best for kids.

Leadership Improvement Plan

In both situations, the school district did things that were advantageous to successful
implementation of a new curriculum. The process associated with the math curriculum was a
better plan overall. The phases that were drawn out were sequential and allowed for proper
mentoring through experience. The math implementation gave teachers the chance to learn from
each other in a timely fashion and not feel pressured for immediate results. The result of the
mentoring from colleagues and the instructional coach helped teachers gain personal mastery and
eventually get behind the program they were teaching.

13
Teachers were also able to collaborate in teams to discuss the new curriculum and talk
about areas of improvement. This allowed teachers to build and foster a shared vision through
team learning. These teams were also able to work together on a realistic scope and sequence as
well as rubrics that would help in assessing student learning. This process also allowed teachers
to meet with others from different buildings to help to understand the vision.
There were a few areas of improvement for the system of implementation though. The
district could have been more proactive rather than reactive. One area could have been aligning
our grading system to the assessment pieces provided by Everyday Mathematics. It wasnt until
the beginning of Phase 3 that we decided to get together in grade level teams to create rubrics
that would align the assessments given in Everyday Mathematics. This seems like a step that
could have been taken care of during Phase 2 of our implementation. That would have been a
year ahead of when all teachers would be teaching the curriculum.
The next improvement to the system should have been more opportunities for teachers to
observe the mentor teachers during Phase 2. This would have given every teacher more of an
understanding of the program and teachers could have adjusted instruction sooner than towards
the middle to end of the year of Phase 3.
There were also definite areas of improvement in regards to the reading implementation.
The first area of improvement was being more proactive in providing information to parents on
what their children would be taught and the different level of rigor involved. It was an intelligent
decision by the district to use an adjusted scale for the first couple of years for Wonders. This
allowed time for teachers to adjust their instruction and for students to adjust to that instruction.
This was not communicated right away to parents though and there was some confusion on
whether the district was trying to lower the bar of achievement to cover up for poor performance.

14
This definitely was not the case and this problem could have been solved by being proactive and
providing a letter at an open house to explain why the district was going that route. Teachers
would then feel more supported and be less likely to shift the burden.
Another area of improvement would be to run the implementation process closer to the
math model. In that scenario, mentor teachers piloted the program and provided support in the
coming years to teachers new to the program. The reading implementation was not conducted
like that and there were far more bumps in the road. Teachers did not have a firm grasp of the
new curriculum right away so there were more problems to be handled along the way.
The last major improvement to the system of reading implementation would be to make
sure and lay out the expectation that every teacher is a reading teacher. Teachers struggled
with the idea that if they did not teach reading specifically, that the material did not apply to
them. It was a process to get all teachers to understand that reading is taught in every subject
area and that we were all working towards the same systems goal.

15
References
Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (2nd
ed.). New York: Doubleday/Currency.