Parallel Learning Structures

How the Project Will Begin

As with any intervention our group has approached the problem facing the school district by first researching and reviewing existing organizational development interventions, literature and research. More specifically, our group examined different interventions that could apply to the needs of our targeted school district. Based on research cited in this paper, parallel learning structures would decrease resistance to change through developing a parallel system and fostering an environment of creativity and innovation in an existing organization that is collectively failing according to certain prescribed standards in the “No Child Left Behind” initiative. Parallel structures help people break free of the normal constraints imposed by the organization, engage in genuine enquiry and experimentation, and initiate needed changes (French and Bell, 1999). They provide a mechanism to facilitate innovation in large bureaucratic organizations where the forces of inertia, hierarchical communication patterns, and standard ways of addressing problems inhibit learning, innovation and change (Bushe and Shani, 1991). Therefore it is paramount that Merrell, Monk and Pace approach this endeavor in a scientific manner. Generally speaking our group will first gather the appropriate information; analyze the data; publish our findings; select our group participants to help address the issues and concerns; make recommendations for change in the school district; and then allow the parallel systems to implement those recommendations within the context of their respective organization’s hierarchy.  

To monitor the progress and effectiveness of the initiative the project will utilize a pre-test and post-test format with regularly scheduled evaluations throughout the school year. Our method will first select and identify participants for our parallel systems called “leads” (synonymous with group leaders) who are individuals or groups from the representative organizational sub-groups. As consultants, we deem it necessary to also include administration in these change procedures, as their support of change management is vital to the continued success in the ‘No Child Left Behind’ requirements. However, with parallel learning structures, we understand that the role of the parallel system works in tandem with the existing hierarchy and school structure but is virtually independent in its decision making and implementation of change processes and innovations. In order to receive decreased resistance to change and foster an environment of creativity and innovation as prescribed by the parallel learn structures approach, it is paramount that teacher, administrator, support staff member, parent and other school affiliates have a voice in some manner through a quality circles process.  Quality circles are an example of parallel learning structures which have a primary focus on improving quality (Deming, 1986). Quality circles generally consist of volunteers who meet regularly to analyze and make suggestions about their concerns. Given the short time constraint our quality circles will include information gathered from various sources (i.e. surveys, group meetings, email, personal contact et cetera).

Project Timeline

        One condition for the survival of the parallel system and diffusion of the learning process is that the parallel system has the power to impose its new learning on the organization. Typically this condition occurs when an organization’s leadership is the initial learner, creates a group around him or herself to function as a parallel system and then patiently and persistently creates the conditions necessary for the rest of the organization to learn (Bushe, 1990). This process requires patience and persistence and typically a lot of time; however, due to the schools time constraints this initiative must be accelerated.

The majority of the planning for the project will take place prior to the beginning of classes beginning for the students. More specifically, Phase 1 which includes:  gathering data, processing the data and publishing our finding will be conducted during the summer prior to the school year through mandatory meetings, surveys, and via interactive computer websites and teleconferencing.  Once the data is analyzed and our finding published the in-service training, group meetings, and selection of the leads for the quality circles will happen at least 3 weeks prior to school beginning. Pre-test or pre-initiative measurements will be developed from the data that is collected to help measure and monitor changes. This test will reflect the standards and scores indicated on the No Child Left Behind initiative score cards. Pre-test will establish a basis for improvement and will establish credibility for the parallel learning structures initiative.

Project evaluations will be conducted every nine weeks after school has begun.

        The proposed intervention would be conducted throughout the entire school year. According to the facts stated by the Superintendent the school district is at risk of being “privatized” or “taken over by state officials” if the “No Child Left Behind” requirements are not met this upcoming year. According to the four-phase structure constant change will take place during the four nine-weeks. According to the action research structure of the parallel learning structure there will be constant presentations of one’s research to the quality group leaders and receiving feedback from diverse perspectives (quality group leaders and consultants) to support a successful action research experience (Aune, 2002). Furthermore, this continuous restructuring could be abbreviated if needed or elongated if needed.

Project Activities

        The project would be compiled of four phases where change management will be evaluated consistently throughout the process. These four phases were derived from our research and based upon an existing working system of the parallel action learning structure hosted by Farrokh Alemi, Ph.D (). Each phase would coincide with the nine-week period equivalent in the school system. This method would also allow further time for study and reflection during the summer holidays.

At the beginning of each phase there will be diagnostic activities where facts are gathered about the way things are. This most likely will be done through asking all the four groups through surveys, interviews, and hall meetings (parents) in order to find out the way thins are (http://mason.gmu.edu). Each phase will continue as follows each phase then refining the change process more than the previous phase. The various phases are listed and described  below:

Phases One- (Summer Prior to classes)

1. Gather information and analyze data.
2. Conduct Team building activities that relate to organizational tasks or to interpersonal relationships within quality groups
3. Conduct inter-group activities designed to improve effectiveness of interdependent groups within the quality groups.
4. Mandatory and voluntary education and training activities. Stipends given for voluntary trainings.  
5. Observation and evaluation of positive and negative effects of change implemented. Evaluations are given to quality group leaders for further study.

Phase Two- (Beginning of classes)

1. Administer Pre-test measurements to establish a base score for the initiative.

Phase Three- (Classes have begun)

1. Implement innovations and changes at the beginning of the school year.
2. Survey feedback activities wherein employees review the data and design action plans.
3. Structural work redesign, wherein the organization’s formal structure is changed or new ways are organized for working across divisions within the organization.
4. Process consultation activities wherein the quality group leaders are helped to understand how they decide, how they communicate the decision, what roles each plays, and what problem the organization faces. Process consultation involves an outside expert who helps the process by asking question about the organization.
5. Peacemaking activities, wherein a third party consultant intervenes to reduce work conflicts between both quality group leaders themselves and quality groups (which involves those involved at all levels).
6. Include quality group sessions on mandated school half days for in-service training for staff and volunteer training for parents. Coaching and counseling activities are involved. Quality groups are asked to define learning goals, describe how others see them, and review non-evaluative feedback they receive from others in the school districts.
7. Quality group leaders plan and set goals for upcoming phases. Quality group leaders set objectives for themselves and the group.  

Phase Four – (The last half of the school year)

1. Conduct mid-term evaluations
2. Analyze results and publish them
3. Implement further changes if necessary.
4. Administer post-test

What Leadership Support is needed?

In order for parallel learning structures to work critical support for the parallel system must come from outside of the school district. These sources can include consultants, legislators, vested persons, research centers or other parallel organizations that have gone through or are going through similar processes of change (Bushe, 1990).  Merrell, Monk and Pace realize that our parallel system actually exist because of the sponsoring organization and that our subjects, although granted some autonomy, would require the support of the school district leaders, administration and other organizational affiliates. 

        It is important to initially get key leaders of each subgroup and influential personnel (transformational leaders) on board to this venture. The choice of quality group leaders is a key factor in gaining acceptance of this method. Quality group leaders should be comprised of existing leaders within the school, whether it is team leaders, grade leaders, or subject area leaders. The same is necessary within support staff, the existing leaders in place should be used for quality group leaders among support staff and parents. Involved parents such as team moms and PTA representative should be a part of the steering committee (quality group leaders). Quality group leaders would get a pay increase for their time and expertise involved. Furthermore, as a consultant we would not want to take away power involved with existing leaders. When a person’s power becomes not fixed and less permanent then resistance to change increases (Manki, 2003). “Instability in power makes apparent certain fragilities within structures and makes them liable to threats and seductions from subject positions within different or competing communications” (Manki, 2003). As a consultant, it is best to gain other’s acceptance through referent knowledge, while the county can use other incentives such as stipends, increased pay, and half-day in-service days instead of weekend training for employee training. “The primary answer lies in the commitment of the school’s leader to ‘unlock’ the schools existing culture before making the attempt to introduce a new one” (Weller, 1998).

What would the major change activities involve?

        The major changes may involve changes in the school districts structure, operations, curriculum, expenditures and allocations of resources. The premise is that the parallel system would make recommendations for these changes and implement innovations that they belive would help address the issues.

Major change activities involve “a systematic analysis of faculty meeting notes, syllabi, letters, statements of professional growth from student portfolios, comments on student and alumni survey, and archived online discussion” (Aune, 2002). It would be beneficial for some a lot of the feedback between teachers and quality circle leaders to be administered via online communication and discussion groups. Rubrics and feedback would be communicated through these activities. Human aspects included providing constructive criticism, adaptation the research timetable, and fostering supportive working relationships.

Factors to consider

Other factors that should be considered within the context of the quality groups are frequency, intensity, time, and type. The changes that are sought out first should be issues that occur frequently. A high amount of intensity should be used to implement changes, while enough time should be given. Furthermore, problems within each group (teachers, administration, support staff, and parents) should be “typed” so that similar problems with correlate with similar and complimentary solutions. Furthermore, the premise of action research also needs to implement change in the students as well. It might be advisable to also have a quality group of students. The parallel action learning structure must agree with the learning of the students, and is based on the ides to give students more responsibility in their education (Woods, 2001). Evaluation of the positive effects of change implemented will be through action research focused on how the students approached the rubric design and application assignment. Input from the students will be used prior to each phase and if their evaluations were consistent with the grades and competencies then phases should continue, if variances are shown between rubrics scores, student feedback, parent feedback, teacher feedback, etc. then more changes should be implemented in each phase (Woods, 2001).

When the Superintendent Can Expect to See Changes in the Workforce

        The Superintendent could expect to see positive changes in the workforce possibility as soon as the end of the first phase (end of the first nine-weeks). Furthermore, in terms of the validity of quality circles is extremely positive even among Fortune 500 companies. “Quality circles are an example of parallel learning structures which have a primary focus” on innovation and in “1985 90% of Fortune 500 companies in the USA were using quality circles. Positive results are widely reported. In a 1990 study of 313 organizations, 52% regarded their quality circle program to be a success, 36% were undecided, and 12% deemed it unsuccessful ().

Summary

In essence, parallel structures are a vehicle for learning how to change the system, and then leading the change process (Bushe and Shani, 1991). Parallel Learning Structures was chosen as an intervention because it promotes innovation and change in large bureaucratic organizations while retaining the advantages of bureaucratic design (Bushe and A. Shani,1990). Parallel Learning Structures may be a form of Knowledge Management involving capturing the organization's collective expertise wherever it resides. (http://www.humtech.com/opm/grtl/ols/ols6.cfm).  Parallel Learning Structures promotes innovation and change in large organizations by utilizing groups representing various levels and functions of an organization (Bushe, 1990). Our approach with addressing the school district’s issues was based upon the premise that the school could draw upon the expertise and strengths of its collective organization to achieve success.  

Researchers cited in this paper have observed that parallel learning structures work well with large organizations (Bushe & Shani, 1991). Furthermore, researchers have concluded that in order to make changes an organization must have enough time and the necessary resources to create a functional parallel system. Researchers recommend that there should be close communication with participants through the parallel learning structures  process; communication between all members of collaborative groups; respect for participants; support, assistance and resources provide for process participants;  constructive criticism; adaptation to participant’s personal circumstances; and structured activities and facilitation for discussions and meetings (Aune, 2002). Given these circumstances the parallel learning structure process will flow and the parallel system will thrive and continue to learn. As cited by Bushe and Shani little controlled research on parallel learning structures has been published with a large amount of the evidence being anecdotal.  The evidence is primarily case study and anecdotal with outcomes reports including: improved productivity and decision making; employee satisfaction; and organizational effectiveness (Bushe and Shani,1990 and 1991).

References

Aune, Betty. (2002). Teaching Action Research via Distance. Journal of Technology and

        Teacher Education, 4(10), 461. Retrieved October 9, 2004 from Research Library

        Database.

Bushe, G. and Shani, A. (1990) Parallel learning structure interventions in bureaucratic

organizations. Cited in Pasmore, W. and Woodman, R. Research in Organization change and Development vol 4. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.

Bushe, G. and Shani, A. (1991) Parallel Learning Structures. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Cole, R. (1979) Made in Japan - quality control circles. Across the Board, 16, p72-8.

Deming, W. E. (1986) Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Retrieved October 9, 2004,

        from ProQuest Direct database.

French, W. and Bell, C. (1999) Organization Development. London: Prentice-Hall.

http://.

Manki, M.A. (2003). Power, Subjectivity and Strategies of Resistance: The Case of the

Acme School. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science,

2(4), 52-75. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from Research Library database.

Weller, L.D. (1998). Unlocking the culture for quality schools: reengineering. The

International Journal of Educational Management, 6(12), 250. Retrieved

October 9, 2004, from ProQuest Direct database.

Woods, M.L. (2001). Responding to education Reform: Action Research on Student-

Designed Rubric Application, 72(1), pA-83. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from

ProQuest Direct database.

Zand, D. (1974) Collateral organizations: a new change strategy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 10, p63-89.