Eric, responding to, “DDN School Voucher Article Fails To Point Out HB136 Will Use Coercive Taxation To Fund Religious Education,” writes, “Government should rise to the challenge of providing schools worthy of parental support.” But, should public education be all about pleasing parents? Eric’s comment made me once again return to ideas from TQM, and ask, “In public education, who is the customer?”
Twenty years ago “Total Quality Management” was a hot topic, and, in West Carrollton, where I taught, I participated in a district wide “Quality Committee,” formed to make recommendations for improving West Carrollton Schools. The reasonable premise of TQM is, in order for an organization to be successful, it must fulfill the aim of aligning the use of its resources to effectively and efficiently please, delight, and exceed the expectations of its customers. In education, the question, “Who is the Customer?” is the basis for some valuable analysis.
The U.S. Congress is deemed unsuccessful by 85% of Americans, yet, the defenders of congress absurdly continue to talk the talk of democracy. From one POV, however, Congress is spectacularly successful because it is accomplishing its actual aim: maintaining the status quo. After all, 90% of congressmen are assured of perpetual reelection and, overall, the customers of congress, the monied interests who donate millions to individual congressmen, couldn’t be more pleased by the legislation they have purchased.
Organizations have an ostensible aim and an actual aim. Congress is failing in its ostensible aim to be an effective branch of a representative democracy, but it is succeeding in its hidden actual aim — to secure its members’ power and enrich those who pay to play.
W. Edwards Deming warned that as organizations mature, inevitably, individual profit centers emerge, focused on promoting their own advantage, and sap the capacity of the organization to accomplish its ostensible aim. General Motors sought to make money for its unions, shareholders and executives and, over time, sort of forgot, if it was to have a future, it needed to focus its energy and resources on producing a quality product that would delight its customers. Oops.
Much of the sound and fury concerning improving public education has actually been fomented by individual profit centers seeking advantage. Corporations have demanded that public education train workers for their factories. Unions have pushed for more pay and benefits. Universities have demanded more expensive teacher credentialing. Politicians have sought voter favor with ham-fisted simplistic answers. And parents, cumulatively, have been the most forceful profit center of all — demanding, and receiving, ever more tax money to pay for expensive special programs for their children.
This sense of entitlement of Ohio parents, amazingly, has reached a new dimension, with some parents pushing for special privilege, via House Bill 136, to use public tax money to pay for a religious based education in private schools. HB136 should be a wake-up call for taxpayers. The idea that parents are the primary customers of public education, and are entitled to make unlimited demands on the system, has always been an erroneous claim. The push for HB136 simply makes the error of that claim more obvious.
The way forward for public education is a new assertion of local control, as a balance to the special interests of parents, industry, the educational establishment. A system of public education under the authority of local control would create an organizational structure that would align the use of its resources to please its customers, the local taxpayers. Yes, parents and the educational establishment would have an opportunity to influence the formation of public policy, but would not have the blank check they enjoy at present.
Local control can only exist in the context of an authentic local democracy. The way forward for the transformation that is needed in public education is to put the customers of public education, the taxpayers, in control via the vitalization of local democracies, via the vitalization of authentic community. In Kettering, local control would mean taking a fresh look at the $12,000 per student now spent in the district. It would mean finding a way to delight the taxpayer by finding an organizational structure that would produce much higher quality at lower expense. Defining system quality would be a big part of the process.
This is all an interesting thinking exercise and I am inching along in my goal to think big about the future — looking backwards from 2030 — and explain how the progressive community of Kettering transformed public education and set an example widely copied throughout the nation: When Anna Is Nineteen: Public Education In Kettering, Ohio, In The Year 2030. I think topics dealing with the future would be a good way to frame the Kettering School Board elections in 2013.
Previous posts that seem pertinent:
- In Kettering, The Challenge Is To Help The Local School Board — Regardless Of Disappointment With Election, By Mike Bock, on November 10th, 2011
- Humanity Is On A Wire — In The Future, Education Will Seek To Develop Character More Than Intellect, By Mike Bock, on May 9th, 2011
- Bob Sommers — Ohio’s New Director Of 21St Century Education — Explains His Vision Of The Future, By Mike Bock, on April 6th, 2011
- Transformation Of Public Education Is Possible Only Via Strong Communities Exerting Local Control, By Mike Bock, on February 16th, 2011
- If The Aim Of Public Education Is To Provide Opportunity — How Should $150,000 Per Student Be Spent?, By Mike Bock, on November 22nd, 2010
- Throwing Money At Public Education Is Not The Answer, System Change Is Needed, By Mike Bock, on January 14th, 2009
- To Transform Our System Of Education, We Must Redefine The Aim Of The System, By Mike Bock, on May 27th, 2008
Mike, when teachers fail at oversight of their own employees, they lose the credibility to supervise other people’s kids.
Nonetheless, the state is obliged to fund a thorough and efficient system. The solution appears to be downsizing the traditional system until its small enough to solve its own problems. Why not provide a modest incentive to remove students and place them in schools acceptable to their parents? Where in the US or Ohio Constitution is the government power to compel attendance at constitutionally inadequate schools?
So you object to this solution. Then propose a Kettering Foundation/NIF forum to explore alternatives. (Yet another indictment, since public schools (and their supporters) appear impervious to the good ideas from Kettering Foundation.)
Teachers have employees?
Teachers have employees?
See http://daytonos.com/?p=6836
Unions have staff (i.e. employees). Teachers unions “are” the teachers. Ergo, Teachers have employees. (That’s by the union’s own logic).
In reality, teachers can’t regain control of their own union from the union staff. Mostly due to unwieldy governance, self-selection among governance candidates, and an extensive misinformation campaign conducted by union staff (at teacher expense) to convince teachers that the staff is serving teachers’ best interests.
Finally, the many negotiated agreements means teachers on negotiating teams are relieved to have assistance from the labor relations consultants employed by the union.
Mike,you say that you take the perspective of 2030 and looking back on ” and explain how the progressive community of Kettering transformed public education and set an example widely copied throughout the nation.” That is not local control, that is the control of the liberal elite.
You post makes some good points, a lot of them. Including a perspective of the taxpayer, a perspective that a lot of liberals and Republicans lack.
I like your discussion of the various interests involved, parents, teachers, unions, the public, taxpayers, etc.
I do not believe that parents have the blank check you assert. If a child in Kettering uses a voucher for a religious school, that does not diminish by a penney what the school system will receive from its levies.