Re: Deming-based Nat. Fed. Ed. Std.

[Myron Tribus <mtribus@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net>]

>
>-DRAFT #1 (10/1/99)-
>
>by Daniel B. Lyle, Ph.D.
>
>A PROPOSAL FOR A DEMING-BASED
>NATIONAL FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL STANDARD
>
>
>I.	THE STAKEHOLDER MEETING.
>
>1.	Motivation to Contemplate Change.
>
>	In order to continue receiving any Federal money, all schools k-12
>will be required to document that they've gone through the following
>process, which will need to be repeated at least once every three years.  If
>sufficient documentation is not provided, all Federal money going to that
>school will be frozen until such time as the requirements are satisfied.
>Some Federal money will be provided to help with extra expenses required for
>the following, mandated process.  The documentation and money-flow will be
>monitored by the appropriate Federal Agency.
>

	The Congress will not pass legislation which allows the Federal
	Government to micromanage the schools.  I would not approve,
	either, since it sets a bad precedent.

>2.	Format and Process of the Stakeholder Meeting.
>
>	At each school, a formal Stakeholder Meeting facilitated by an
>outside, Quality-trained consultant will be convened in regards to that
>particular school's AIM, METHODS, and CONTINUING EVALUATION.  This
>conference may require several days to achieve its goals.  Formal separate
>groups that must be present or fully represented at the stakeholder meeting
>must include:  1) students from the school;  2) classroom teachers from the
>school;  3) managers from the school;  4) parents of students in the school;
>and  5) other stakeholders [i.e. any interested members of the community;
>managers from local colleges; business-people from the community;  local
>government personnel;  local religious leaders; state education officials;
>state government personnel; Federal Agency representatives; Congressional
>people; etc.]  Deliberations will be done in facilitated small groups such
>that all individuals present can have input.  Final consensus will be
>reached between representatives of the five main interest groups in open
>session, based on the small-group deliberations.  For each of the three main
>objectives, a current DEMING-BASED FEDERAL EXAMPLE must be part of the
>initial presentations (specific examples that have been approved by the
>Deming Institute in consultation with appropriate interest groups.)

	The WEDI is not organized to be an approving agency. Have you
	tried to develop consensus on AIM, METHODS AND CONTINUING
	EVALUATION?  Hard enough for a single school; impossible if
	the result is to be a national standard.


>
>
>The first order of business will be to come to consensus on that
>school's AIM.  The AIM can be anything the group decides, as long as it can
>be stated in one sentence or less.  Outside, knowledgeable experts must be
>brought in to present a variety of viewpoints concerning what appropriate
>AIMs for schools are, prior to deliberation by the entire group.]
>
>	Once an AIM has been established, the overall school PROCESSES must
>be examined as to whether or not they are appropriate for meeting the AIM.
>Once again, outside consultants providing a variety of viewpoints on the
>value of different kinds of school processes (both in and out of the
>classroom) must be brought in before deliberations on this point proceed.
>The school's management must have a clear, brief, well-outlined
>summary/flow-chart of the main school processes (including internal to
>individual classes) prepared in advance.  Consensus must be achieved from
>the five groups as to whether or not the general approaches used by the
>school seem to be acceptable, or should change.  Any changes proposed must
>be subsequently piloted, appropriately evaluated ("PDSA cycle"), and
>approved by representatives of the five groups before ultimately being
>rolled-into the existing structure.

	This, too, is a kind of micromanagement for which I doubt you
	can obtain Congressional support.  I doubt that Dr. Deming would
	have liked it, either.


>
>The last order of business will be to come to consensus on how the
>school will know if the AIM is being met.  Once again, presentations from
>different experts will advise on a variety of evaluation tools.  Once
>appropriate tools have been agreed on, data will be acquired that yearly
>will be communicated to the representatives of each group for further
>dissemination.
>
>	A full report on the Stakeholder Meeting must be published in the
>local newspaper(s) as well as forwarded to the appropriate Federal Agency.
>The school's designated AIM, METHODS, and CONTINUING EVALUATION can be
>different from the current DEMING-BASED FEDERAL EXAMPLE.  However,
>justification must be given as to why the Stakeholder Meeting feels their
>conclusion or approach is superior.
>
>
>3.	Follow-up.
>
>Representatives of the five groups will continue to communicate with the
>school hierarchy as to giving their approval on accepting piloted process
>changes.  Also, they will meet yearly to study the continuing evaluation
>data.  At that yearly meeting they will prepare a report that will be
>published in the local newspaper(s) as to how the school is progressing in
>meeting its AIM and any new suggestions for further changes to be
>piloted/evaluated/rolled-in.  A copy of this report will also be sent to the
>appropriate Federal Agency.  Every three years, another full Stakeholders
>Meeting will convene to completely re-evaluate AIM, METHODS, and CONTINUING
>EVALUATION.

	I have additional comments which will be included in a post
	responsive to part II of this proposal

>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>Dan Lyle, Ph.D.
>Research Biologist
>301-443-4049
>dbl@cdrh.fda.gov
=========================================================================