RE: Education and Presidential Candidates

["Mowery, R. Neal (RNM) " <RNM@y12.doe.gov>]

	Steven Byers wrote:

	>I am very frustrated by the "debate" about the condition of our
educational systems, the ranking of our children, accountability, and so on.
I even heard a Senator (party is irrelevant, of course) yesterday on NPR
claim that the way to quality in education is to focus on results rather
than the process. "You can mess with the process all you want but that won't
improve education." Well, precisely. 

> How can we inject some systems thinking into this discussion? The
> scientific method? Cooperation, not competition. To me,the idea of schools
> competing for resources (teachers, money, students) is appalling. Can any
> candidate tell us what is the Aim of our educational system? As Peter
> Scholtes says, without an Aim, a purpose, there is no system.<
> 
	The quest for accountability, the desire for testing of students and
teachers, and comments such as the senator's on process stem, I believe,
from frustration on a couple of fronts.  Steve quite correctly (IMO) notes
the lack of an aim in the educational system.  I do believe, however, that
this is a political question, a societal value judgement if you will.
Taxpayers/citizens need to agree on what schools should accomplish.  The
difference in values among different people diffuses the development of a
universal aim.  My children are being taught values and ideas (and in some
cases, things that pass for facts) that I must un-teach.  Similarly, there
are things I believe are important that my children know and understand that
the school fails to teach.  Multiply me by a few million other parents
tugging to get the school to adopt curricula that is consistent with their
individual values, and you see how an aim can quickly become diffused.  

	Some see the solution to this problem as being constant modification
of the curriculum.  Others choose to simply ignore the wishes of parents and
other taxpayers.  Others believe a solution is sending children to private
schools.  Still others look at a choice between a range of public "charter
schools" each offering a differing curriculum as being a possible solution.


	Further clouding the aim and possible solutions are those people who
have a solution in mind, and only need a problem to attach it to.  That
happens frequently with government money in my experience.

	The second issue is a lack of feedback.  Use of standardized testing
can provide feedback (albeit slow) to understand the differences between
teaching methods and school success.  Only by using this feedback and
understanding what influences it can we compare alternatives and monitor for
improvement.  But feedback leads to two problems:  How do you get educators
to take it seriously?  and how do you get students to take it seriously?

	The argument is that you get educators to take it seriously by
giving them a financial stake in the outcome.  This argument is supported by
data.  And you get students to take it seriously by making it a condition of
successfully advancing to the next grade.  This argument is supported by
data.  Unfortunately both of these have negative consequences, and encourage
teaching to the test and cheating.  And like it or not, schools have shown
that they will do just about anything for a few extra dollars.

	It makes sense to move funds from bad schools to good schools if you
also intend to move the students from those bad schools to those good
schools... and if you understand (or have a supportable theory) that such a
move will result in better educated students.  Is this competing for funds?
Yeah, probably.

	Inefficient, ineffective businesses will be supplanted by efficient,
effective ones.  Understandably, people would like to see the same thing
happen in schools.  Thus, they propose to adopt the free-market model for
schools.  (BTW, the US uses a free choice, profit driven, combination
private and govt funded (quasi-voucher) system in it's system of colleges
and universities quite successfully... colleges are extremely adaptable to
different student and societal needs). 

	Deming believed that profound knowledge comes from outside the
system.  I don't believe the education system can heal itself.  Many
educational leaders, just like leaders in business and industry, have a
great stake in maintaining the status quo, as that is the environment in
which they flourished.  I believe that the education establishment cannot
heal itself, and that it is unlikely that it will "grow" in a different
direction without some severe interuption from the outside.

	Plan-Do-Study-Act, within the context of a common aim seems to be
the solution.  Once the aim is established (and it isn't), I think it is the
"Study and act" part that causes so much disagreement.  What do the results
mean (study)?  What should we change in light of the results (act)?  Fair
questions I think, worthy of the debate.  But Deming does not provide the
solution... at best he provides a method to develop solutions within our own
value judgements of the aim and our theories on balancing the causes and
effects of establishing consequences.