A reader writes in response to the question of whether teaching is harder than rocket science:
I am not quite a rocket scientist, but I do have degrees in nuclear engineering. And now I am National Board Certified Teacher and have been full time in the classroom for almost 20 years. I started out exactly like this reader with volunteering in classrooms. And then I decided to take the plunge into full time teaching. Teaching has a lot in common with engineering. Both require creative solutions to problems where you begin with basic theories and then look at your constraints to design workable solutions. However, teaching is much tougher because the variables are constantly changing. We know a lot about how people learn and what we know tells us that learning is contextual. No situation is ever the same, not year to year, not day to day and some days not even class period to class period. Physics assumes that the basic causal models apply regardless of context. Neutrons do not have days where their parents let them stay up all night. They do not fight with their best friend right before my class. Neutrons do not have hopes and dreams and fears. Teaching is incredibly dynamic and complex. It is so much more intellectually and emotionally challenging than simple observation and test scores can reveal.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
As a general rule, communicating what you have learned is always harder than learning it — though it’s true that trying to do so can help you to learn it better.
So if the complexity of nuclear research compels use of Deming, isn’t the same true of education? Consider the late John Marburger’s comments on his time at Brookhaven labs:
“I was expected to have well defined plans, to execute work according to the plans, and if the work turned out differently than expected, to change the plans for the next time around. Management experts call this the cycle of continual improvement. It goes with a mnemonic that seems to go back to W. Edwards Deming: Plan, Do, Check, Act. I like that way of doing things. That is the core method of science, and I explained it to our scientific staff that way. The same ideas form the basis of the President’s Management Agenda, promulgated by President Bush to improve the performance of all government agencies.”
Apparently, the teachers unions failed in their commitment (at least to NEA members–remember new unionism?) to apply this common sense approach to benefit schoolchildren.
The link (broken, above):
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/marburger04.html
The obvious question: does US ED use Deming? Perhaps OCR and the K-12 folks need a Deming-based performance audit!
Having read and helped institute some of Deming’s ideas in the 80s and 90s I can say that the ideas were/are sound for the for profit world. Public education and the for profit business world are two different realms and if anything the business world might be better served if it took on some of the more “humane” aspects of the public sector realm.
When the unions started to accept the “cooperative” approach is when the unions really started to lose all the gains their predecessors had realized.
So who would benefit most from a Deming-based performance audit:
-Central office of an urban school district
-US Department of Education
-State departments of education
-NEA and its state affiliates
Do you hope to make the case that Jim Collins’ Good to Great in the Public Sector is bad for unionized educators? That’s problematic since the “thorough and efficient” ed clause (in about six state constitutions) presumes a “system of common schools” that keeps pace “with the most rapid progress of the most rapid element” of society. State attorneys general have applied that standard for over a century. An easy case can be made that Deming, Baldrige, etc (cf Good to Great in the Public Sector) is today’s embodiment of that legal standard.
You (and union lawyers) are free to suggest a different standard, but please provide a credible argument that will hold up in court.
Eric,
Not into frivolous superlative comparisons. Like counter factual historical discussions, it can be interesting but ultimately it’s an exercise in mental masturbation (which is okay as it can be fun but not much is accomplished).
Have not read Collins so I can’t respond to that and there isn’t enough info for me to have any thoughts on it.
And I’m not sure what the legal standards are to which your refer. I’ve not heard of “thorough and efficient” clauses as a legal standard and don’t believe Missouri’s constitution says anything like that. If you would please expound on them-cite court cases, etc. . . , then I might be able to comment. I know that the Supreme Court stated that the changes from Brown vs Board should be implemented “with all due haste” and we saw how quickly that happened.
The standard for me and I would hope the courts would be open to is this: Is the practice logically and educationally valid and does it minimize harm to all students? If a practice can be shown to be invalid and causes harm students then I would hope the courts would be open to challenges to said practices/laws, a la Brown vs Board or Tinker vs Des Moines
Duane,
I hope you will forgive me if I fail to relay your coarse characterization of the oath-sworn duties of our state’s attorney general next time I speak with him.
Missouri has a lousy ed clause–requiring a “free education” for the necessary dissemination of knowledge.
Ohio’s ed clause has been extensively litigated in Ohio (DeRolph), West Virginia (Pauley) and New Jersey (Abbott).
Google Woodrum Constitutional Common School or even “most rapid progress of the most rapid element” for more background.
Regarding policy issues, courts are very deferential of the other branches. The likely standard being laws are not arbitrary, that legislators can demonstrate a rational basis.
The lawyers employed by teachers unions (paid through the union dues of teachers) could help teachers by arguing for a clearly superior plan–one that makes the current course appear arbitrary and capricious. Instead, teachers applaud Bob Chanin’s rant at the 2009 RA.
Engineering requires only a BA, though many engineers, and many teachers have more advanced degrees. My sister is an engineer — married to a teacher.
Education also is harder than making a billion dollars. Consider Bill Gates, with one failed reform effort after another. And Mike Bloomberg, who with unprecedented control of NYC schools for a decade, failed to budge the achievement gap.
Think of how many decisions teachers make a day. As a high school teacher, every period presents several opportunities where I must decide a course of action. Not just in constantly evaluating my lesson, but bathrooms, lack of homework, texting, talking, lateness, language. The list goes on. When on hall duty I have to decide how to handle the student who doesn’t have a pass, but swears his teacher told hom to “just go”, plus so much more. This goes on all day, everyday. Who makes that many decisions all day?