A fourth grader from Milwaukee Public Schools recently proclaimed, “Let me tell you why I love systems thinking.  It lets you do really complicated things, but it makes them not so complicated.”  In his book Living with Complexity, Donald Norman writes, “Complexity is a world state, but complicated is a mind state.  So if one spends the necessary time with a complex concept, it won’t seem so complicated." Connecting these two ideas seems to offer a strategy for making complex a little less complicated.

Few would argue that we live in a complex world.  Complexity is apparent in relationships, in changing circumstances, in business dealings, and yet we have all witnessed individuals, who deal with extreme amounts of complexity with confidence and positivity, while other individuals respond with frustration and bitterness. Perhaps, in addition to time, one thing that makes a difference is the ability to accept the complexity and apply a skill set that makes it a little less complicated.  The tools and habits of systems thinking are a valuable part of that skill set.

Let’s go back to our fourth grade systems thinking enthusiast.  When she is faced with a challenge in school, say a complex word problem in mathematics,  she has a choice. She can throw her hands up in frustration or she can use what she knows about problem solving, the structure of the math problem and even a few tools from her systems thinking toolbox to embrace the challenge and spend the time necessary to solve the problem.  Her successful efforts don’t make the problem less complex, but they do allow her to move beyond the mental state of, “This is hard,” to an understanding of complexity, that in school sounds like, “I have the skills I need to solve this problem.”

Grown-ups can apply the same shift in thinking.  A manger might be faced with solving a difficult problem among his management team.  Personalities, varying levels of work performance, a disgruntled client and even the image of his own looming performance review, could create conditions of a complex problem.  Not unlike the fourth grade math student, this manager has a choice to make.  He can focus on all the elements that make the problem too hard and too complicated, or he can draw upon a skill set that helps him embrace the complexity and devote the time and energy necessary to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

It seems there is a significant difference between complicated and complex.  There are some extremely complicated mechanical systems.  Systems with more parts, connections and interdependencies that we can count.  Given sufficient time, we live in a world where computing power combined with a highly skilled technician can study, analyze and breakdown these complicated systems in order to diagnose and fix almost any challenge.  

However we are still left to deal with complexity.  Complexity requires nuanced thinking.  It requires stepping back andnot just looking for the direct connection but the indirect ones.  Human systems add an additional layer of  complexity because people hold such different mental models and see things from vastly different perspectives.

So like our Milwaukee fourth grader we would be wise to take a breath, embrace co plexity and seek to solve wicked problems with a level of nuance.  This is where hte Habits and tools of a systems thinker can be quite useful.  They provide the how to this very nuanced thinking with language, concepts and principles that work.  

So where can you start when deciding to become a more nuanced thinker.

• Identify a complex challenge in your life.

• Look for patterns and meaningful connections.

• Use tools like causal loop diagrams or mind maps to visualize the relationships.

• Reflect on how changes in one area might affect others."

Life can be complex, but if in the complexity you take the time to consider an issue fully, identify patterns and trends, and consider unintended consequences, among other systems thinking habits, you might just find things to be a little less complicated.

School attendance, and the problem of chronic absenteeism is a community-based problem that requires coherent solutions and action across stakeholder groups. Assigning the blame to schools would be misplaced; asking schools to solve the problem unilaterally fails to understand the scope of the problem, so we need local solutions that match the particular set of needs. Systems Thinking Habits and tools can serve as a method to help school communities develop solutions.

Introduction

School non-attendance is a community-based problem. When children do not attend school regularly, there is a cascade of problems caused in the near- and long-term. It goes without saying that there are many school-based factors, well within a school leader’s control, that impact school attendance. However, to make the type of change necessary to impact our current situation, we must look beyond the school-yard gates and into the communities that students live in. A community-based approach shoulders an important assumption - that no one entity within the system shoulders the full burden. For this reason, a Systems Thinking-informed approach is necessary to make lasting change.

The Problem of Chronic Absenteeism

No educator can escape the blaring alarm about student attendance and the increasing rate of students who are chronically absent (defined as missing 10% or more of the school year). We have seen a 11% rise in an already problematic rate of chronic absenteeism since COVID-19 began, from 15% to 26% of students in the 22-23 school year (NY Times). The term crisis has been applied to an issue in education many times in the recent past, usually in relation to student achievement, however, we are now contending with a crisis that could impact foundational principles of our society and communities. If children are not attending school, they certainly cannot learn reading, writing and mathematics. Moreover, they miss out on the socialization that school provides, and the safety net provided by educational institutions which mitigate hunger, abuse, and other detrimental risk factors that injure families and communities.

A simple google search reveals numerous articles that describe the phenomena of chronic absenteeism and the attempts to legislate policy solutions (NYTimes, ProPublica, NCSL). Ranging from mandates placed on school systems, contracts with private companies to intervene with students and families, incentive programs for students, and restorative practices meant to reintegrate students with schools, possible solutions feel in endless supply. With everyone looking for a quick fix, it is possible that school leaders feel inundated with ideas, overwhelmed by the problem, and that they are grasping at straws.

School is “optional”

So what does the current situation around schooling reflect? I believe that a recent headline from The New York Times may say it best - “Our relationship with school became optional.” It is reasonable to attribute a negative connotation with the word “optional”, implying that perhaps students and families are disregarding their civic commitment to education. Instead, let’s take the emotionality out and think of this as a new relationship where other, multitudinous, factors come into the decision-making of students and families so that school is an option for where to spend time among many other possible spaces. Taking this at face value, we can suppose that students and families are making “rational” choices based on the information and beliefs that they have and the situations that they find themselves in. As good systems thinkers do, let’s not assign blame and rather let’s define the problem as carefully as we can.

Leaning into the notion that the relationship between communities and schools has shifted compels us to examine causes and effects not from a linear perspective, but rather from a circular or recursive one. Human relationships, and the connections between cause and effect in a human system, are rarely simplistic enough to manage and change unless we are prepared to recognize their complexity and that context matters. We are compelled to think about how the boundaries that we draw in our analysis enables and constrains our ability to make change in the system.

Even though one-size-fits-all approaches feel more suitable, and because we have a natural compulsion to manage problems on a broad scale, since student absenteeism is a community-based problem we should consider more community-based approaches. In fact, The Learning Policy Institute has conducted research that suggests that Community Schools, ones that link students with in- and out-side resources are more likely to mitigate the symptom of chronic absenteeism (LPI). In essence, the boundaries around the phenomena of chronic absenteeism expand beyond the schoolhouse gates and outside of the direct control of school leaders.

Where do we draw boundaries?

The crisis of school attendance and student absenteeism is a symptom of structural changes in communities. Let’s see this as a manifestation of one of the 14 Habits in Systems Thinking - A system’s structure generates its behavior. Policymakers and educational leaders agree that COVID-19 and the ramifications of school closures and work/home changes that occurred dramatically impacted and even exacerbated an already increasing problem with school attendance. Blaming the school closures alone is not sufficient to understand the full scope of the problem. Looking at some recent articles we can see that the structure is not just changing, but also shifting in different ways in different places. Reasons for absences may range from:

• Family vacations

• Care for siblings and/or adults in the home

• Student illness

• Sense of safety at school

• Lack of transportation

• Mental health

• Sickness (COVID & other more routine illnesses)

• Parental work schedules

• Academic avoidance

Even with this knowledge in hand, the legislation is woefully lacking in comprehensiveness and innovation, compelling school systems to manage the crisis in a silo. In essence, for many school leaders, the boundaries of the system for school attendance have been artificially drawn closely around the school system. To improve the conditions for attendance for students and families, perhaps we need to consider a broader inclusion of the structures within the social system that contribute to school (non)attendance and work to widen our influence. By expanding the boundaries of our system, we increase the complexity but also the likelihood of finding solutions - extending a clarion call for using Systems Thinking Habits and Tools.

A Systems Thinking Informed Approach

The categorical reasons why students are absent are likely similar across contexts. The list above captures the vast majority of why, however, the prevalence of one reason compared to others likely differs between communities. In communities with higher income levels and greater social capital, there may well be more family vacations, more diagnosed mental health concerns, and perhaps increased academic avoidance. In settings with lower income levels, sickness, caring for siblings, and safety concerns may be more consistent barriers for students. The question is whether policymakers and leaders in local communities know what the composition of causes in their community actually is. Unfortunately, the factors are obscured by the simple fact that the observable trend is that students are absent from school.

From a Systems Thinking perspective, if we only measure the pattern based on school absence and fail to account for the causes, this may obscure the need to address the problem on a community-based level, and we fail to shift our perspective to attend to the causes. Said in another way, because the observable problem and scale of absenteeism appears to be similar across communities, leaders and policymakers assume that a congruent set of solutions will drive change. This stands in contrast to a Systems Thinking approach grounded in the Habits of a Systems Thinker and systems thinking tools that help us to prioritize the context and needs within the community, to (re)design a structure in order to generate different outcomes.

Using a Systems Thinking Approach

1. Re-conceptualize the boundaries of the system - Instead of viewing the school at the center of the system, let’s consider the student at the center. This change of perspective offers us an opportunity to see the system through a new lens and shifts responsibility for school attendance to many entities. Since chronic absenteeism affects students in the primary grades through the upper grades of high schools, if we wish to impact the system in an efficient and meaningful way, we should consider the role of the family and care structures that surround the children. Some of the organizations that have an impact on our system include employers, healthcare providers, transportations services, and other culturally important institutions. Each has both an interest in students attending school regularly and can also influence school attendance.

2. Visualize connections - If we assume that there are many influences on student attendance, we should consider that there are high-leverage actions that are outside of the control of the school, alone. A Systems Thinking model for change would ask us to make meaningful connections within and between systems. For example, including community health agencies, local transportation agencies, housing agencies, childcare providers, and others in the discussion about chronic absenteeism illuminates the interactions that families and students may have beyond the school. While we might not establish standing partnerships in this effort, by visualizing the system broadly we increase chances of finding viable solutions.

3. Understand that mental models are the foundation of action - It is all too easy to take a deficit-minded approach - “Parents are not engaged” “Students don’t care” “They’re just lazy”. When making policy or determining how to change the behaviors of others, all too often leaders substitute their own norms and beliefs for those who they seek to influence. However, if we take a Systems Thinking approach we ground ourselves in the belief that mental models, the underlying and often sub/unconscious heuristics that lead to choices and action, are developed from experiences and imparted from trusted sources. To effect change on the system that surrounds students who are chronically absent, we must begin by learning the mental models and then determine methods to alter behavior in spite of existing mental models or by influencing the complexion of mental models in place.

4. Tools to visualize thinking and assist us in developing context-sensitive solutions could include the following:

1. Behavior Over Time Graphs: We can map a trend over time and visualize our story. This tool could help stakeholders tell their own stories and share their own perspectives to generate deeper insights into the problem.

2. Ladder of Inference: When analyzing data, the Ladder can serve as a tool to understand how our own biases impact our conclusions. Additionally, using the Ladder might help identify stakeholders and elements in our system that we might overlook.

3. Stock-Flow Diagram: By mapping our system using a stock-flow diagram, we can better understand the in- and out-flows and conditions that are modifying student attendance.

4. Iceberg Model: By mapping out our understanding of the events, patterns, structures, and mental models, we can identify points of leverage.

Conclusion

It has become more and more clear that fundamental shifts are occurring in the fabric of our society, and the choice to attend school regularly is perhaps one of the paradigms that are deeply affected. Changing the relationship that communities, families, and students have with school to more closely resemble our ideal will take time and dedicated leaders at all levels who serve as problem solvers who acknowledge the inherent complexity. That the problem is complex should not detract from our fervent desire to find and implement solutions, but instead should inform how we develop solutions. Addressing the constellation of variables that contribute to the outcome of chronic absenteeism requires that our educational leaders maintain an open mind and can hold various perspectives to understand the needs and then determine solutions. Donella Meadows wrote that “Change comes first from stepping outside of the limited information that can be seen from any single place in the system and getting an overview”(108, 2008). No two contexts will be the same, and no one person can solve this problem alone. If this resonates with you, then you are already thinking in systems.

References

Learning Policy Institute. (2023). Chronic absenteeism and community schools (Fact Sheet). Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/chronic-absenteeism-community-schools-factsheet

MacGillis, A. (2023, April 20). A startling surge in student absenteeism. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/school-absenteeism-truancy-education-students

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Mervosh, S., & Paris, F. (2024, March 29). Chronic absences in schools rise nationwide. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/29/us/chronic-absences.html

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). Student absenteeism. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/education/student-absenteeism