A critical response to Michael Fullan’s “The future of educational change: system thinkers in action”

Abstract

Michael Fullan has been one of the leading thinkers in school reform and educational leadership for several years. His prominence in the field is well deserved: through numerous books and articles Fullan has presented a complex yet compelling set of arguments and recommendations for addressing the broad array of problems confronting schools and school systems. The clearest evidence of the value of Fullan’s work lies in the fact that his ideas have transcended national boundaries and been embraced in Canada, the US, England and a number of other nations. The insights and wisdom contained in ‘‘The Future of Educational Change: System Thinkers in Action,’’ build upon the impressive intellectual contributions that Fullan has made in the past. In making the case for ‘‘... a fundamentally new kind of leadership in action,’’ Fullan suggests that the accomplishments of educational leaders should not be based upon gains in student achievement, but rather on how many effective leaders they have groomed, mentored and cultivated who can move the system to produce even greater progress. Sustainability is the key for Fullan, and he calls for leaders to become more adept at learning how to ‘‘identify and take into account system context.’’ He then goes on to expound upon eight elements of sustainability that he regards as the central adaptive challenge for leaders who are system thinkers. Despite the potency and profundity of Fullan’s main points, I am forced to recognize that they are almost completely irrelevant to urban and rural school systems in the US and elsewhere that serve large numbers of poor children. This is not because the question of sustainability is not pertinent to such school systems. Rather, the charge of irrelevance lies in the fact that the set of arguments contained in this analysis overlooks the central problems confronting schools in impoverished areas. To claim that these ideas have little relevance to such systems is clearly a significant charge for the institutions where poor children are concentrated are typically the most