If we look at raw materials as student background, process as teaching methods, and output as graduates, the analogy would be that every variation in student background or teaching methodology requires adjustments in cost in order to produce consistent graduates.

This is very personal to me. Last spring, after the state announced our results on the high-stakes assessment that students must pass to graduate, I sat in my classroom looking around at my kids and feeling angry. Once again, we had the lowest WASL scores in district. Once again we failed to make AYP in several categories. Once again, we were labeled as “low-performing.”

To continue the Lean Manufacturing analogy, let's examine my richly diverse “raw materials.” My school has over a 50% transience rate; fewer than half of the students who start ninth grade here will graduate from my school. Hand in hand with that is a high level of poverty; more than 60% qualify for free/reduced lunch. Almost 40% do not speak English at home. Many have parents who are not literate in any language, and the average student comes to us working significantly below grade level. All of these characteristics separate us from the other high schools in my district. When we start with such different students, how can we end up with the expected “standard” high school graduate?

Lean manufacturing has little tolerance for any variation, whether it be the skill of workers, the schedule, the tools or (especially) the raw materials. If variations in raw materials are tightly controlled, then the manufacturing processes can be optimized to provide consistently high quality outputs -- at a price below the cost of a less efficient manufacturing process.

In educational terms, if variations in our students’ backgrounds are tightly controlled, then the teaching methods can be easily optimized to provide graduates of consistent quality at a lower price. If the tight control is not possible (as is so often the case in public education), then the cost will be higher.

Consider bread production. If the baker is provided the same quality and quantity of wheat flour, yeast, eggs, butter and salt, he can expect to turn out loaves of consistent quality on a predictable schedule. If another baker is provided with a more diverse and unpredictable set of ingredients, but is still required to follow the same recipe as the first cook, the results will not be of a similar quality. An excellent baker will still be able to turn out good bread with the variable ingredients, but she will have to be allowed to use different recipes, to spend more time on tailoring the process to accommodate the available ingredients, and to work on a different time schedule. These adjustments will necessarily increase the total cost of the final loaf.

While the diverse population of my school provides a richness of culture, it also presents a complex obstacle to producing “standard” graduates. The word that best describes this obstacle is inequity. When we receive the same funding as a solidly middle-class high school (which until very recently we did), the system might choose to describe that as equal, but it is not equitable. We need more resources (teachers, books, time, training) to level the playing field for our kids and assure the same level and quality of graduates.

Successful business leaders in today’s economy understand that when the manufacturing process needs to be altered to compensate for different raw materials, the cost of producing the end product will increase. Yet some of these same business leaders (as well as policy makers with business backgrounds) are engaged in school reform initiatives that ignore this fundamental manufacturing principle. They often seem eager to apply the concepts of Lean Manufacturing to our schools without considering the impossibility of assuring consistent “raw materials,” which would require us to neutralize the cultural diversity that characterizes public education today.

This approach is not only futile, but wasteful and disrespectful. Rather than punishing and suppressing teachers in highly diverse schools that don’t make AYP, wise policies would increase funding for resources and training that would help educators optimize their use of teaching methods that work best for the students we are asked to teach.

For our part, educators must openly acknowledge that diversity creates complexity. We must resist the imposition of “lean education” as public policy. We must unite around the message that there is no single curriculum, strategy, or method that is going to work with every student in every class in every school in every district in our nation.

School reformers can help by advocating for school accountability formulas that factor in such uncontrollable issues as transience, language learning rates for immigrants, and educational history. They can help make sure that accomplished teachers are full partners in the policy development process, so that policies are built on a solid understanding of the complexity of the multicultural classroom.

We need to talk about equity in education rather than equality. Until we make that distinction, we will not make the adjustments necessary to ensure a consistent, quality graduate from every public high school.

Comments

Adendum to last entry.
Now take this example, and use it for the children who are behind, or don’t learn as quickly. You will get the exact same responses and behaviors. Once again, hindering the education process.

Commenting as a parent, I couldn't agree more with Kim's post.
Having a student that is reading and doing Math well above his grade, I have a problem with "canned" education.
When one talks with the teacher about giving more challenging homework, one gets back "we have a specific curriculum we have to follow."
This is not what a parent wants to hear. These children should be given the opportunity to be challenged at school.
I do understand there are PAT programs for the more advanced children, but ours is located at another school. My nine year old does not want to leave all his friends and comfort zone, to attend a different school.
What ultimately happens with these children is they become bored, creating their own "lesson plan" to keep themselves entertained during class. This not only can get them into trouble (speaking from experience), but also disrupts the rest of the class, which is only another hindrance in the learning process.

Thanks for clarifying your judgment. By outsiders, I mean people in and out of schools who do not accept the inferred premise that more efficient learning does not work in real schools, however defined. Project Follow Through with over a million students, among others, demonstrated that "working" (increasing learning efficiency) depends on what the teacher does, not necessarily the student or the learning venue. They start from the point, "It's the teacher, ..." I suspect disagreements on this point will continue as they have for decades. Likely, these differences will continue to spawn "alternative" learning venues that outperform most public schools. Do I understand your point?

Bob, thanks for your comment, but I'm not sure what this sentence means: "Outsiders know we can offer students with more efficient ways to learn and to learners benefit." If you're saying that people outside the world of education know more effective ways for us to teach, I believe that as a blanket statement, it is incorrect. One of the reasons that so many teachers quit within the first few years is because they come into the profession thinking that they know these "efficient ways" and are disillusioned by the reality.

However, while I completely agree that there are more effective ways for the state and districts to spend education funds than some of the programs that are in existence, I stand by the tenet that those outside of education do not know the pedagogy or content as well as those of us working with the kids every day. Having a say in budget is quite different than having a say in my curriculum or strategies.

On another hand, schools, like businesses, must account for their expenditures in ways acceptable to those who pay for the schools and hire us. Outsiders know we can offer students with more efficient ways to learn and to learners benefit. So, as with running lean businesses, we have choices outsiders want us to take whether we like them or not. Yes?

Sorry Travis. I guess I wasn't very clear. I was trying to compare the chances of getting a quality teacher by random selection with the chances of getting a quality video by random selction.

@Tom, I think I like the motion picture analogy. Let's take it out a bit further...nothing has to be standardized, the movies that win big are often the ones that take risks, and there are many that take risks but nothing comes from it and that is okay because everyone learned in the process and moved on to the next adventure. In the motion picture industry it takes some people 9 hours just to get into costume; that sounds like the industry understanding that quality takes time and it is okay for it to take whatever time is needed. Furthermore, if it did take, on one day 9 hours 10 minutes, they probably could live through that glitch. However in a school system, 10 minutes is huge. In my class, that is over 1/5 of the class period, short and hectic as it may be.

I may just have to open up a Pages document and do a side-by-side of the motion picture industry to education.

I am a bit unclear on your very last sentence. Can you elaborate? I think I understand the sentiment based on the line prior, but the last line seems to counter the positive nature of the school. Thanks.

This is just the sort of post I needed to read today. The kind of post that lets me know that I am not alone in how I view education. That it "isn't just me". Balancing the need to PRODUCE the best students along with WORKING WITH whatever level of student we have is stressful.

Every year I hear districts talk out of both sides of their mouths: "We shall individualize how we teach our students and every student can learn. We will honor each student with whatever they bring and help them to be successful even if it is a small step. Education is about learning." and then..."This year's test scores are in. Here is where we need to work. We did not/did meet this benchmark line number so...."

When I am teaching, working with students, amazed with what successes they have, I love teaching. This student did not know how to write dialogue in a story two weeks ago and now they do. Fantastic. When I am sitting in meeting listening to everything that is not directly connected to students, teaching becomes a chore. #3 on the non-fiction text, inference, students scored at only 47% correctly answered.

The lean connection with business and education is timely. It is often used to the harm of education. Lean Production (TPS) works well and has helped Toyota become the automotive powerhouse it is even though it did not have many of the industry tools, strength, or people. It would be great if, just like the underdog Toyota, we could take an underdog student and make them the powerhouse of learning. And we could if that one student were assigned one teacher and given the time needed to make the adjustments like in your baker analogy.

I have even used the lean system analogy in one of my posts regarding teachers going through their curriculum and taking out the muda. However, this lean system does not involve students and does not involve any raw materials.

You are spot on--students are not a consistent bunch of materials and once people stop thinking of them in terms of a "group" of things with a common quality, and start seeing them as individual students who each have individual needs, American education will work wonders.

There is always that one example that beats the odds. But that one example is one of few. For this reason it is an outlier. These "one examples" are not possible to replicate in the larger system of education. There is something so uniquely special about that one example and that is why it works. If that one example is successful because the teacher or class or school has a longer class period, then all schools should do that! Or maybe not. It may not be what all schools need.

Education will be successful once again when states, districts, schools, and teachers are allowed to make changed to affect their unique situation, when the idea of one-size fits all is dead.

I guess the other option is for us to genetically engineer students so they are all the same or force so many consequences on students that they fear going outside the lines.

Kim, you have the problem so well summed up. You have pointed out the flaws and the solution. Where do we go from here?

Well put, Kim, and it reminds me of Shelly's take on "Ikea Schools" from Sweden, where they strive for standardization and efficiency in a nation where the "raw materials" are significantly more uniform. Education is certainly not a business, and I’m sick and tired of the business community telling educators to run schools the way they run their businesses. And in regards to the banking and real estate industry, thank God we don’t! I do, however, like to compare education to the motion picture industry. Most parents will enroll their children in school without worrying about the specific classrooms into which their children will be placed. These same parents will spend up to an hour at Blockbusters, deciding on how they will spend their evening. Maybe this points out a lack of concern for education, but I don't think so. I think parents know that more likely than not their children will spend their school year with a competent and caring teacher. On the other hand, they know that if they were to randomly select a product from America's motion picture industry, there is almost no chance that they'll get something worth watching.