Change has a Human Dimension

The pre-requisite for educational change is for a group of individuals (such as teachers working within an institution, or school system) to engage with the proposed change. Simply mandating or hoping for change in a system will not ensure change. It is people who are at the core: they develop, they implement, they review, they act and react. Without considering the impact of change on people, and how important they are to cause, effect and outcomes, policy-makers and planners are simply overlooking the principal agents involved, to the greater or lesser detriment of what is intended.

As noted by Havelock and Huberman (1978:156) the best way to effect change is for policy- makers and implementers to first take into consideration “inter-personal relationships, based on trust, consideration, dominance, etc …” as aspects of change. They further state that educational institutions are uniquely situated in that they are human intensive, and not like other institutions that may be primarily dominated by individuals using technology, machinery, construction or object manipulation. Moreover, they state that change will be more likely to succeed and possibly more sustainable by initially setting targets and plans that take into consideration the human dimensions of the change process.

From the perspective of Havelock and Huberman (1978), change in education is a complex system in which each party within an institution depends upon and relates to each other. Accordingly, a successful change process that is sustainable over time will have an initial focus on the individual stakeholder’s sensitivities and will seek buy-in before implementation. The premise here is that the change process is complex and should, therefore, not just focus on altering ‘things’, but rather on shaping the expectations of those involved, subject to the intended outcomes of change. In other words, it is not just about re-arranging physical components in a system, but rather about changing individual expectations to facilitate the change process itself. As the authors note, the people implementing change are the most significant factors in the change process and since change is a complex undertaking, it is not easily attainable. For effective and sustainable change to occur, all relevant change participants should be effectively trained provided with new knowledge, and up-dated skills.

In sum then, I am arguing that change is complex and involves human as well as other elements. Perhaps foremost among the concerns many of us will have is dealing with the unknown – change may take us to new and un-explored places and make demands that we adapt to new

situations and circumstances. We may no longer have the luxury of remaining in stasis, but be faced with change dynamics which make us uncomfortable and uneasy. As a result, according to Havelock and Huberman (1978:156), people respond to perceived threats by clinging to [status quo] their existing roles “until new roles become dominant or some accommodation is made”. The stance taken by Havelock and Huberman (1978), and Stacey (1992), regarding the change process is shared by Hall and Hord (2001) in that they recognise and validate the view that educational change is an extremely complex process in which success requires sufficient time for individuals to gather information, analyse this information, gain knowledge, absorb this knowledge, and to finally commence the incremental process of behavioural change. They also recognise that there are no guarantees that the teachers or school administrators involved in the change process will effectively implement intended changes.

In Qatar, and elsewhere too, given the complexity of the change process and the unpredictability of human behaviour, we may assume that change under certain conditions is dependent upon what is effectively an honour system, i.e. change cannot be forced or imposed save in the narrowest of circumstances, meaning that successful outcomes depend to a great extent on those responsible for enacting what policy-makers intend. Of course, any honour system will inevitably break down when those responsible for enacting what policy-makers intend have been marginalised or divorced from the process.

For example, a principal may have new materials to distribute that are critical features of a new curriculum, but instead of ensuring that teachers use the new materials, she may state that the use of the materials is voluntary and teachers can supplement what is currently available, knowing

her teachers are comfortable with an arrangement such as this. She may follow through by distributing new materials to her teachers, but sensing that teachers are more comfortable with the old materials she will not ensure, nor monitor, the effective use of the new materials. As a result, teaching materials are not changed, nor are the behavioural practices involved in teaching and learning. In this sense then, a teacher may comply with a new curriculum without changing teaching methods. The end result of this inadequately planned cycle is that the intended change does not occur due to a subtle undermining process, due to passive teacher resistance, or due to intentionally weak or inadequate management supervision.