To Main Proceedings Document
COLLEGE QUALITY, STATE STANDARDS, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: USING
SYSTEM DYNAMICS TO GUIDE PRACTITIONERS TO “BETTER QUESTIONS”
P. Jeffrey Potash and John F. Heinbokel
Waters Center for System Dynamics
208 Colchester Ave.
Burlington, VT 05401
Conventional thinking suggests that an academic team of an oceanographer and a religious
historian have little useful role in conversations with school administrators searching for answers
around the financial and human impact of new state-mandated graduation standards, with college
administrators over enrollment and financial management concems, or with criminologists
seeking to stem the tide of domestic violence. Recent experience, however, suggests otherwise.
Our use of a full range of systems tools has been enthusiastically embraced by practitioners to
productively wrestle with “mental models,” to illuminate core issues traditionally overlooked in
the conventional definition of the “problem,” and, ultimately, to forge a better collective
understanding of the factors and relationships which affect their “systems.” Positive, productive,
and expanding collaborations reflect a conscious desire not to assert expertise or provide answers
but rather to build a productive framework within which to challenge experts to identify and
contemplate “better” questions.
A common starting point for engaging practitioners asks, “What Stock(s) is(are) at the core of
your concen?” This launches discussions about the system’ s behavior over time, distinguishing
the “real” from the “perceived” and “historical” experience from the “future” expectation.
Behavior over time graphing, while seemingly mundane, yields tremendous insights into
differing mental models: their components, boundaries, behaviors, scales of measure, as well as
time frames.
We can then guide the conversations smoothly into simple causal loop diagramming and, more
powerfully, into simple stock/flow diagrams. It is, at this level, that unforeseen stocks and
relationships can raise questions typically ignored in conventional problem-solving. Facilitation
of a discussion involving college administrators thus came to center on a stock of “perceived
quality” which transcended the traditional boundaries of finance and enrollment. In the case of
state-imposed learning standards, a stock of “newly designated student non-achievers” focused
an insightful discussion of unforeseen personal as well as financial costs. Finally, in discussions
with academic criminologists and social-service providers in the field of domestic violence,
identifying two stocks, “perceived male privilege” and “his new incoming control” literally
redefined how discussants conceptualized the “problem” of accelerating rates of violent
behavior.
The model of Jay Forrester, challenging experts in a variety of fields--engineers, urban planners,
economists and, most recently, educators, to use the tools of system dynamics to alter the “habits
of mind” is one which resonates deeply with us. Our experience in working with practitioners in
fields remote from our own specialties, by deliberately refusing to provide answers but by
guiding systemic reconsideration of the issues and in identifying better questions, underscores
growing opportunities for system dynamics to find its way into a variety of new arenas and, if
properly exercised, for engaging the experts in exploring some “better questions” for the 21st
century.
Introduction:
Educators with whom we primarily work speak of “teachable moments” when a
particular situation or question renders students especially responsive to learning. Having had
occasion over the past two years to engage experts in fields far different from our own in
extended use of systems tools to reconceptualize their thinking, we have become particularly
attuned to a common set of situations and questions which facilitate “teachable moments.” Our
intent here is to share our experiences and, as you might expect from a team comprised of two
academicians, one a scientist and the other an historian, to retrace our steps and highlight the
common approaches and common themes used in all three instances while also acknowledging
some of the humanistic elements associated with our uncommon interactions with experts far
outside our own fields.
We begin by citing a common aspect of the three scenarios which captured our initial
attention. Each scenario involved an immediate crisis and a proposed immediate solution which
underscored little, if any, appreciation for the dynamics associated either with the rise of the
crisis or the proposed solution. In the case of the educational reformer from Minnesota, concern
focused on a new state-mandated graduation standard that had been recently passed by a state
legislature reacting to public uproar following a report critical of achievement levels for its high
school graduates. The crisis at our own institution, a small, poorly endowed college which relies
on tuition as its primary source of income, revolved around diminishing enrollments which
translated into significant financial shortfalls, and the proposal to spend more on marketing as
the logical cure. Finally, conversations with an academic colleague, a criminologist who works
with practitioners in the area of domestic violence, revealed a concer that a disciplinary
overemphasis on profiling the characteristics of male offenders seemed largely unresponsive to
the practitioners’ focus on the dynamics involved in repetitive offenses.
Experts within their respective fields, of course, possess enormous detail knowledge, and
possess deep-seated “mental models” for how their systems work. What is significant, in each
case, is that each was responsive to our first question, “How well do we understand the core
dynamics generating the problem you describe?” That was followed by a challenge: Tell us the
“story” of the problem using a behavior over time graph, identifying the key variable within the
system. That seemingly simple challenge provoked some powerful discoveries. If, in the case of
educational standards, the issue was student achievement, what exactly do we know about the
changing dynamics of student achievement over the past 10 or 20 years? Has achievement
shown a steady slip, or a sudden and dramatic fall, or, for that matter, do we have data that allow
us to study achievement over this time frame at all, given changing curricula, tests, etc?
The problem was different in the other two cases in that data sets were more immediately
recognizable. In the case of college enrollments and finance, the number of students enrolled at
the college could be plotted on a graph, as could college finances. Y et a direct relationship could
not immediately be ascertained: in some years, steady or even declining enrollment yielded
higher income, in others, lower income. In the case of domestic violence, the largest share of
information, drawing correlations between certain personal characteristics and the likelihood a
male might become a batterer, is not dynamic and, as such, cannot really be plotted. What does
lend itself to plotting on a graph, however, is an oscillatory behavior indicating that the rate of
individual acts of domestic violence in a relationship accelerate over time.
A heightened interest in the dynamics of each respective situation led to a second
question: “What Stock(s) is(are) at the core of your concern?” While admittedly simplifying the
system to what might appear to be a totally unrealistic level, the question challenges practitioners
to reflect carefully upon the central dynamics with which they are most concerned and then
highlighting the accumulation(s) associated with these dynamics.
In some instances, the challenge generated an immediate response. “Acts of Domestic
Violence” was obvious, growing out of some level of “Anger” associated with perceived failings
in the relationship (see later illustration); “Students Meeting the Current State Standard” was
almost equally so, while, in the case of the college, a pair of stocks, “Enrolled Students” and
“College’s Finances” seemed to provide a useful focus.
At this juncture, we consciously focused attention on the ability of the identified stocks
and their flows to address the dynamic storyline. What is significant is that the practitioners
began to recognize the high degree to which their mental models were fabricated on static
profiles rather than on a solid understanding of the dynamics through which circumstances
evolve. When asked to attach flows to the stocks and, more significantly, connectors between
stocks, substantial new questions evolved, powerful questions unfamiliar to each of the
practitioners. To their credit, they were willing to address the questions and, in so doing, to
move significantly away from their initial “answers” of how the system worked.
College Quality:
While the story of fewer students translating into less income seemed, at first glance, a
comprehensive one, consideration of the dynamics associated with the stock of enrolled students
revealed the necessity of looking closely at graduation rates. A simple stock/flow diagram raised
issues about how students move through the system. In the case of graduation, disaggregating
that stock revealed that irregular admissions (years with especially good or bad recruitment
success) yielded significantly varied enrollment; one strong year, for instance, can boost
enrollment for 4 years; but can also, if not matched by comparable matriculation, lead to
significant declines, when that class graduates from the student stock.
COLLEGE ACCOUNT
income expenditures
QS
STUDENTS ENROLLED
ore e me
matriculate graduate
attrition
More dramatic, however, was an examination of the second outflow from the student stock,
attrition. Significantly, amid all the impressive data collected by the College, persons building
spreadsheets continued to use a constant rate for that attrition. Y et an examination of the data
revealed that, in fact, there was significant variation, most dramatically in the recent past when
attrition rates had risen significantly. That led us to consider, how do we ascertain who stays
and who leaves? Everyone involved in the discussions agreed this constituted a “better
question,” requiring some rethinking of everyone's initial mental models.
While every individual student believes she has a unique set of needs that govern her
decision, evidence indicates that students typically choose a college based upon relatively few
factors that collectively define the college’s “quality.” Quality, as it came to be used in our
conversations, referred to the College’s ability to meet an individual student’s needs expressed
ona pair of axes: academics and living environment.
Fixed expenditures
Other income
AVAILABLE FUNDS
) current income current expenses
Enhancement expenditures
CURRENTSTUDENTS
a)
O
graduation
attrition
Reet Iheirabe PERCEIVED TRINITY QUALITY
@¢ 63
oe)
depreciating quality enhancing quality
Quality depreciation rate
But quality, everyone agreed, does not stand alone but is merged with another factor, cost.
Tuition and fees, plus room and board, plus incidentals, less scholarships and other financial aid,
equal the cost for the individual student. Quality (or benefits) and costs combine for each student
to define “value.” As all shoppers, prospective students work through a conscious or
unconscious cost/benefit analysis as they consider individual schools. Schools offering more
‘quality’ in their programs tend to cost more, but, as long as quality and cost both rise together,
the schools still represent good value. This value can often be further enhanced by schools with
significant non-tuition sources of income that can be utilized to support enhanced quality but
without adding to the students’ costs.
Within any individual school today, however, wide variations in value may exist,
depending on the breadth of student needs and desires; the breadth of academic and living
options provided; and the breadth of financial aid offered, as many schools are differentially
discounting the costs for their desirable students through ‘merit-based’ scholarships. A school
with a lower “quality” may be able to compete for students with a higher quality school by such
price reductions, raising the first school’s perceived “value” to a level more comparable to that
of the higher quality college.
Our discussions led us to focus on a limited number of powerful questions:
. What is the breadth in “ability” of our student body and of the students we are
trying to recruit?
. How does the college market its quality for each ability group (does the college
claim to offer programs and services to meet the needs of each group)?
. What is the realized quality of the college for each ability group (does the college
actually deliver the programs and services needed to meet the needs of each
group)?
. What is the cost to the college to provide the programs and services to meet the
needs of each group?
. What is the actual tuition cost for each ability group (how does the college
distribute its tuition discounting across these groups)?
These discussions, in turn, guided us to develop a more comprehensive model which
focused greater clarity on the dynamics associated both with student matriculation and attrition.
Through the mapping out of key model elements, data collection now focused on defining levels
of student ability, broken down both by admission test scores (SATs) and grades earned at the
college.
As we used the information to assemble a working model, the dynamics associated with
the college’s crisis began to become clearer. Over time, as student enrollments failed to grow at
a rate consistent with expenses, three patterns emerged. The first involved more aggressive
marketing; the second, providing scholarships to induce students with higher SATs to attend,
while the third, involved making up for student shortfalls by expanding admissions to embrace
lower performing students. As a result, enrollments stabilized. However, attrition rates, delayed
by a semester or more grew significantly. Why? Two likely reasons were suggested. One
focused on a disparity or gap between marketed quality and real quality which led many to
become disenchanted and leave. So, too, as the diversity of student abilities grew, teaching to
some average level resulted in the alienation of many at the top (who were bored) and many at
the bottom (who were overwhelmed. These discoveries, engaging administrators representing
finance, academics, and admissions, opened up an unforeseen door for restructuring college
planning and collaborating on alternative strategies for marketing and enrollment management.
The conversation continues; and, ever-deeper and ever-better questions continue to emerge as we
work through the layers of logic to refine this simulation. Whether we can find sufficient
leverage to reverse the current trends, remains an open question.
State Graduation Testing:
The process unfolded in a similar fashion with our discussion on state testing. The initial
mental model, translated into stocks and flows, involved students who took the test, those who
achieved and those who failed. In the first iteration, the factors affecting the rate of student
success were related to proactive stances taken by the school. At the simplest level, people’s
mental models suggested that the impact of a state examination would strike hardest on those
schools whose traditional standards were low and/or those schools where poorer planning and/or
poorer pedagogy yielded poorer results.
ResourcesPerStudent —_ Level of School Expectation
STUDENTS AWAITING TESTING STUDENTS ACHIEVING MASTERY
new testees
mastery
NOTMASITERY STUDENTS
tested and fail pare
remediation
However, as the discussion unfolded, a new question emerged: what about the reaction
of students who, having throughout their careers been labeled successful, were suddenly
designated as failures? Assuming their newly identified shortcomings could have evolved at any
point during their education, how and what would it take to “fix” their problem and bring these
people back up to speed? The conversation shifted to a discussion of resource allocation
(depicted, simplistically, below). Presuming that the impulse to impose standards was
accompanied by a perception that funding was improperly being used, the expectation would be
that there would be no additional resources available. The requirement to meet tougher
standards, however, which would redirect resources to remediation, would, as a consequence,
lead to less resources for the remainder. Short-term problems, as such, would magnify over time.
The final model, developed for use not only with teachers and administrators, but with taxpayers
and school board members, allows all to see the relationships and tradeoffs that result from this
particular mental model.
Quality of Regular Pedagogy
Budget for Regular Pedagogy
New State Standards
ACHIEVE LOCAL GOALS
a. a
Achieving Local Goals
GRADUATES
y
Total Budget
Achieving State Goals Immediately
Failing to Achieve State Goals Immediately
Fract Budget for Remediation
Achieving State Goals with Remediation
FAIL TO ACHIEVE STATE GOALS
Budget for Remediation
Quality of Remediation Pedagogy
Domestic Violence:
The final issue involves domestic violence. After working with a faculty member in our
Sociology/Criminal Justice program and deciding upon a relationship between acts of violence
and anger (see illustration), the conversation opened to include practitioners in the field.
HIS ANGER
anger grows anger dissipates
rep,
ACTS OF ¥IOLENCE
63
new acts
Two, in particular, pointed out that many of the males with whom they worked exhibited
little or no anger. In this domestic violence scenario, the idea that anger grew, then was
dissipated by an act, then grew again, made wonderful sense and, indeed, reflects part of the
accepted dogma in the field. When clearly expressed as stocks and flows, however, the
weakness of that mental model was exposed and opened for improvement.
If not anger, then what? Examination shifted to greater clarification of the couple's
relationship. A significant breakthrough involved the recognition that, even when a male had
seemingly absolute control over a women in a relationship, he was still likely (and, in many
cases, more likely) to lash out. Why? Was it the total accumulation of power or the flows or
shifts of power that was critical? Clearly, it appears to be the latter. It seems that he can
sometimes perceive that, as she conforms, she is thus exerting significant control over him too.
In other words, he can perceive that she is conforming in order to control his behavior. This
perception may anger him as well. This dynamic may help explain the commonly-known
phenomenon that she cannot win in these relationships -- even if she does exactly what he says
he wants, she is still at risk. For all involved in the discussion, this constituted a significant
conceptual “aha” or breakthrough.
Further consultation with other professionals who work with batterers and victims led us
to recognize that, in addition to an actual sense of male privilege (based, in part, on traditional
male dominance in class, education, occupation, and other factors), there is a powerful
perception of privilege which we defined as an important stock in this model. When their sense
of male privilege is threatened, whether from within or from outside the relationship, they may
feel both the need and the right to defend or re-establish that male privilege, with violence, if
necessary. This stock of perceived male privilege grows and diminishes throughout each day.
According to many batterers' reports when in counseling sessions, its perceived growth and loss
is a key factor in the dynamics of their decision to batter. As we thought more about this aspect
of batterers’ lives, we realized that the "list of characteristics" (or correlations) which are
commonly associated with batterers (experience with battering as a child; beliefs/attitudes
favoring violence; drug/alcohol abuse, etc.) may in fact not be the most effective "leverage
points" for intervention. In fact, the fluidity with which a male’s perception of his level of
privilege changes may make this a more effective intervention point.
Our conversations have brought us to a point where our heterogeneous group consists of
an academic criminologist and three practitioners, one who works with battered women and the
other two who counsel males who have been identified as batterers, along with the two of us
facilitating the system dynamics elements. We now have a map to identify what we perceive are
the major dynamic elements which illuminate male repetitive battering behaviors. Our
conversation focuses on “GAPS” or disparities between his (the batterer’s) ideal or desired world
and his perceived world. These, we suggest, generate an internal “need to act.” At its base, what
are the factors which shape this need? Consider:
a) in terms of his relationship, the “GAP between his real and ideal control”
b) in terms of his outside “world,” the “GAP between desired and perceived real
entitlement.
c) and, as a moderating or, alternately, accelerating component, his “coping skills” or
personal characteristics which allow him to deal with obstacles and frustration in non-
violent ways.
Y et, even when the profile AND the need exist, we must consider another factor: the
degree to which there are “Deterrents or costs of an initial act.” Evidence here suggests
that his “actual entitlement level” may be related to how effective socially generated
deterrents may be.
HIS PERCEIVED ENTITLEMENT LEVEL
perceived entitlement grows
she complies (2;
~ perceived entitlement dims
GAP between desired and perceived real entitlement
Deterrents to initial act FEAR or INTIMIDATION
coping skills
play O ots of psyo intim fear transformation
+) —~&
“se Probability he could act
-
His Need to act \
SS ikelihood resort to physical violence or vot
His view of ideal control oN
GAP between his real and ideal control of i Acts of physioal violence or intimidation
Desired entitlement Level
O
REMEMBERED FEAR
be Z \ wis new incomine contro.
HIS PERCEPT OF HIS TOTAL ACCUM. co) His PERCEPT OF HER CONTROL
she complies
a?) _
pere control grows Fk)
destabilization
O
perceived control drains
Finally, this discussion led us to consider that her level of “FEAR or INTIMIDATION”
is critical to the equation as well, in that high levels of fear generally lead her to comply with
his desire for control in the relationship. After she has been subject to psychological and/or
physical violence or abuse, she retains a memory or a “Remembered Fear.” This memory may
be revived after an act of violence or intimidation, perhaps only a small act of psychological
intimidation, which triggers remembered fear to “flow” into current fear. This fear, in tum, may
lead her to comply BEFORE an (or another) act of physical violence occurs.
Conclusion:
Our efforts in working with the three disparate groups have been both exciting and
illuminating. In each case, the starting point was identical and purposely simple, exposing how
well each expert could identify and communicate basic behaviors over time. The next step,
identifying stocks and flows, once again emphasized simple and purposely incomplete or, in
some cases, erroneous understanding of the key components and relationships within the system.
Still, recognition of these shortcomings provided a new and powerful dynamic for engaging each
group of experts to reconsider mental models and to open up to new and better questions.
Throughout our interactions, we consciously and forcefully insist that our roles as
facilitators do not include finding “answers.” If we can expose and communicate our mental
models to others, open ourselves to the mental models and perceptions of others, we stand a
good chance of recognizing and filling gaps in our factual or perceptual foundations and,
ultimately, in becoming more adept at understanding how systems do and might work.
