Gov. Strickland’s Education Plan Disappoints — Fails To Deal With The Central Issue Of System Structure

Posted on February 2, 2009 by Mike Bock

Governor Strickland’s enthusiasm must have got the best of him when, in his State of the State Speech, he announced a goal to “build Ohio’s education system anew.” Unfortunately, it appears that Strickland’s Education Plan does not really seek to accomplish such a grand goal. The aim of Strickland’s plan is not to make a new system but, rather, to strengthen and add to the present system.

Governor Strickland: Are his ideas are not big enough?

Governor Strickland: Are his ideas big enough?

Every politician can be forgiven exuberance, but it is disappointing that Strickland’s education plan falls so far short of his rhetoric. You would think that a speech about building a new education system would use the notion of “system” to frame the issues in the speech. But, it appears that Strickland in his speech made no effort to think in systems’ terms or systems’ theory.

Strickland wants the present system to do better. He’s not interested in creating a new system. Strickland evidently thinks that the present bureaucratic, hierarchical, top-down system is basically OK.  When Strickland says the system should be “built anew,” he simply means that the system should have better rules, better workers, more money, more requirements, more bureaucracy, and more accountability.

I just can’t see that a theory that says quality comes from more regulations, more hierarchy, more bureaucracy is defensible. I doubt that Strickland thinks such a theory is defensible either.  His speech ran away from such a notion. Strickland had a good applause line when he derided “tinkering” within the present system. But his plan, from a systems’ view, amounts to “tinkering,” because it fails to address systems’ issues.

Strickland seems to me to be a very sincere person and I believe that he genuinely wants big improvements in education in Ohio. I will grant that if Ohio’s education had better rules, better workers, more money, more bureaucracy, it would probably show some improvements.  But at best these would only bring about marginal improvement and marginal improvement simply is not enough.  By Strickland’s own evaluation, what is needed for Ohio education is transformational improvement.

The only avenue to transformational improvement, I believe, is through transformation of the system. I’ve explained in previous articles that my thinking about systems comes from W. Edwards Deming, known as the quality guru who helped direct much of Japan’s post WW2 industrial recovery. I had a chance to meet Deming when I worked as a helper at one of his famous four day seminars. At the time, Deming was over 90 years old.

What I keep quoting from Deming is his conclusion that 85% of quality is determined by system organization and structure. This conclusion has astounding implications. Governor Strickland’s plan, for example, outlines an expensive and bureaucratic procedure by which teacher quality can be improved. I think he has some good ideas. And, I believe the governor is absolutely correct that teacher quality should be improved. But, suppose that all Ohio teachers were twice as competent as they presently are. What impact on educational outputs or educational quality would such a change make? If you think that such a huge, expensive change would make a big difference, according to Deming, you are wrong.  Suppose even more money was poured into advancing teacher competence and teacher competence was tripled.  Again, according to Deming, the overall impact would be disappointingly small.  According to Deming even big changes, by themselves, at most, have marginal impacts, if the system itself does not change.

The system, as it is, finds ways to defeat and discourage even the most qualified teachers. The present system hugely wastes teacher potential. Of the teacher potential already available in the present system only a small percentage is actually focused productively. Increasing teacher potential in a big way within the system would hardly matter if this potential is also wasted.  Increasing teacher potential would have much less impact on quality than changing the system itself.  As I said, Deming’s conclusion that 85% of quality is determined by system organization has big implications. The bottom line is that the means to significant quality improvement is through change of the system, not through change within the system.

The old Soviet system was doomed to fail, because its system design had many fatal flaws. There were many highly educated, well meaning people in the old Soviet system who worked hard to make the system work. But the system was fatally flawed. Similarly, Ohio’s educational system is fatally flawed.

From what I’ve read, it looks like members of the educational establishment, generally, are lining up to show support for Strickland’s plan. And why shouldn’t they? Strickland is basically saying that the present system is OK, but, that it needs more money, more rules, that the bureaucrats in the system need more authority, etc. If you are part of that system, what’s not to like, particularly, if you’ve wormed your way into the hierarchy or bureaucracy?

I appreciate Strickland’s sincerity and believe that he wants Ohio to create a wonderful education system. I like the fact that it bothers Strickland that Samuel Lewis, who toured Ohio schools on horseback in the 1830s as the first state superintendent, would recognize as familiar today’s “classroom with rows of students lined up to listen to a teacher and record, rather than interact with, the information being provided.”

I like that Strickland said that “Our schools are not assembly lines and our students are not widgets,” that he wants to “foster creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving,” that he want Ohio’s students to experience “real world lessons,” and that he wants students to acquire “global awareness.”

Yes. Yes. Yes. Good thoughts and ideas. But, rhetoric is easy. The question is, can we have a government that has sufficient gumption to create an education plan that would actually work?  It would take the expenditure of a lot of political capital to craft and push such a plan.  Strickland for all his sincerity and good intentions, it seems to me, in his education plan, has taken the easy path and has ducked dealing with the hard issues that are central to meaningful education reform. Since Strickland’s plan shows no provisions to meaningfully restructure the system, it is doomed to disappoint. He should have tried for so much more.

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Congressman Mike Turner’s Failure To Explain His “No” Vote Is More Evidence Our Democracy Is In Deep Trouble

Posted on January 29, 2009 by Mike Bock

According to Congressman Mike Turner’s press secretary, Congressman Turner has not made any official comment about his recent “No” on the big stimulus plan just passed by the House of Representative. And, the press secretary is uncertain if any comment about the “No” vote will be forthcoming.

And, as usual, the content of Turner’s web-site is completely worthless in explaining Turner’s vote or the rationale for his vote on this important legislation. I telephoned Turner’s Washington DC office to find an answer to my question about Turner’s “No” vote.

Turner, our Republican representative, voted in unison with every other Republican in the House. This unanimity of group think and group action must make the Republican House leader, John Boehner, swell with partisan pride.

This Republican unanimity in their “No” vote is impressive. It is a clear signal of aggressive and organized partisanship. I shouldn’t be, I guess, but, I am surprised.

You would think that in this time of national crisis that Turner and his Republican buddies might fear the political consequences for partisan obstruction. But, evidently, Republicans are making a political calculation that through partisanship they will gain politically.

If Turner would venture a press release explaining his “No” vote, he would probably simply repeat the party line. Boehner laid the line out the other day on Meet the Press when he said, “Somebody has to be looking out for the taxpayers. And I’m going to tell you what, Republicans are going to be there to look out for American taxpayer.”

I had to laugh out loud. Considering the Republican record of outrageous profligacy under George W. Bush — spending bushels of money, borrowing oceans of money, sinking the country into $4 trillion more debt — Boehner’s tears for the American taxpayer are a hoot. As a Republican leader who empowered Bush’s every incompetent act, Boehner has no credibility. It’s obvious, he is simply a partisan, and in his thinking and actions, his motivation is simply to gain partisan advantage.

It is hardly surprising, I guess, that Congressman Turner would join in with the Republican partisan song. As they say, elections have consequences. The citizens of Ohio’s Third District just gave Turner a ringing endorsement in his recent reelection — a free pass to continue his partisan ways. I urged Turner’s defeat — Mike Turner Is A Bum, For Our Democracy’s Sake, Let’s Throw The Bum Out — on the premise that, if our democracy has any backbone, all representatives who empowered the many disasters caused George W. Bush were bums and deserved to be thrown out.

Our democracy has no backbone. I think it is safe to say that our democracy, in fact, is in deep trouble. So, I guess that it is hardly surprising that our congressman, Mike Turner, fails to explain himself. Why should he?

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Governor Strickland Fails To Explain Impact Of 2005 Tax Reduction Act On Ohio’s 2009 Budget Shortfall

Posted on January 28, 2009 by Mike Bock

I’m mystified why Governor Strickland, a Democrat, in analyzing Ohio’s current budget crisis, completely ignores the impact of the Tax Reduction Act implemented via complete Republican domination in 2005.

This Tax Reduction Act was phased in over a five year period. This year, at the same time that Ohio is going hat in hand to the federal government for a hand out, Ohio, as a result of that 2005 law, is giving itself additional tax cuts. The 2005 law cut Ohio income taxes, across the board, by 21% and corporate and business taxes by about 50%.

As with Bush’s tax cuts at the national level, in Ohio, the Republican legislation gave Ohio’s wealthiest citizens the lion’s share of the income tax cut, with 26% of the income tax reductions going to incomes in excess of $340,000.

Governor Strickland in his State of the State Speech implied that the shortfall in Ohio’s budget is completely the result of the recession. But the 2005 tax cuts contribute to Ohio’s budget shortfall as well.

In Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Act Was Predicted, By 2010, To Result In Yearly State Budget Shortfall of Billions, I wrote about a study published in 2005 that predicted that even in a normal economy, the Tax Reduction Act would cause budget shortfalls. The study said, “Massive cuts in state spending, or alternative tax increases, will be required to make up for the revenue shortfall of about $2.8 billion in 2010, the fifth and final year of the tax reform plan’s phase out period.”

The big economic downturn has made Ohio’s budget shortfall worse, but, the fact that now Ohio is experiencing a budget shortfall was predicted in 2005. It appears that part of the overall Republican strategy behind the 2005 Tax Reduction Act was the fact that budget shortfalls, caused by reduced state revenues, would force a shrinkage of government.

Strickland in his speech said, “For the first time in a half century, Ohio’s general revenue taxes have declined two years in a row. We now forecast that the general revenue taxes available to the state of Ohio will be lower in the 2011 fiscal year than they were seven years earlier.”

But not a word about the impact of the 2005 Tax Reduction Act that reduced state revenues by $2.2 billion and of that amount gave $570 million per year to incomes in excess of $340,000.

Strickland in his speech sounded very Republican when he said, “So in this budget, I must ask all Ohioans to accept the sacrifices that these times demand. In order to protect the priorities most important to Ohio’s future, we have no choice but to reduce a significant number of programs and services.”

Strickland is wrong to imply that sacrifices and reductions in Ohio’s programs and services — particularly to the poor — is simply a result of “these times.”

Strickland said, “We will strengthen Ohio by continuing the implementation of the tax reforms of 2005.”  If Strickland wishes to defend the 2005 Tax Reduction Act — including its handout to the wealthy — then he should defend it in an honest way. Strickland missed a good opportunity in his state of the state address to inform and educate the public about the impact this 2005 law has had on Ohio’s current budget shortfall.


Posted in M Bock, Opinion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment