Andrea Gabor, who is the Bloomberg Professor of Business Journalism at Baruch College, is an expert on the life and philosophy of W. Edwards Deming. Deming has been widely credited with reviving the Japanese economy, as well as major American corporations who listened to him.
In this fascinating post, she draws lessons from the work of Deming and shows how they apply to education reform. The “reformers” want the schools to learn from business, but they are pushing the wrong lessons, she says. “Top-down, punitive solutions” don’t work. They demoralize employees. Deming believed in a work environment of collaboration and trust, not fear and blame. When things were not going well, he believed it was wrong to blame the front-line workers. While today’s “reformers” want to find and fire “bad teachers,” Deming insisted: “The responsibility for quality rests with senior management.” He was a dedicated foe of performance pay, as he concluded that it sowed dissension and unhealthy competition among workers who should be working as a team.
She writes:
Deming’s approach to organizational improvement transformed entire industries in post-war Japan and, later, in the U.S. In the years leading up to his death, in 1993, he began turning his interest to education. He believed that the same principles he advocated for companies—systems thinking, collaborative improvement, understanding statistical variation, creating organizational cultures free of fear and conducive to creative problem-solving—could also transform schools.
Simply put, Deming would be appalled by much of what passes for education reform today…..
Deming’s work has important implications for education: First, it is based on management (everyone from principals to education bureaucrats) recognizing its responsibility for creating a climate conducive to meaningful improvement, including building trust and collaboration, and providing the necessary training; this involves hard work, Deming admonished, not quick-fix gimmicks, incentives or threats.
Second, for many teacher advocates, it means dropping the defensive—education-is-good-enough—posture and embracing a mindset of continuous improvement; it also may mean adopting union contracts that mirror the professional practices of many teachers and are based on more flexible work rules. (Though not the unsustainable sweat-shop hours that are common at many charters.)
Third, by ending the finger-pointing and building a more collaborative approach to improvement, schools and districts could create cultures that are far more rewarding and productive for both children and educators….
Deming invoked the power of statistical theory: If management is doing its job correctly in terms of hiring, developing employees and keeping the system stable, most people will do their best. Of course, there will always be fluctuations—human beings, after all, aren’t automatons. Deming understood that an employee with a sick child, a toothache or some other “special cause” problem may not function at peak performance all the time. However, in a well-designed system, most employees will perform around a mean.
There will also be outliers who perform above or below the mean—though well-run organizations will have the fewest outliers because they’re hiring and training practices will guarantee a consistent level of performance. The work of high performers, Deming believed, should be studied; their work can serve as a model for improving the system.
Low performers, Deming believed, represent a failure of management to perform one of its key functions. Deming believed that hiring represents a moral and contractual obligation. Once hired, it is management’s responsibility to help every employee succeed whether via training or relocation. While it might occasionally be necessary to fire a poor performer, Deming believed this option should be a last resort…..
The lessons for education are clear: Quality improvement must begin with senior management (principals and education bureaucrats) establishing the conditions for collaboration and iterative problem-solving. It requires flexibility and professionalism from both teachers and education leaders. Finally, a climate of fear and finger-pointing will do nothing to improve schools; indeed, it is likely to set back the effort for years to come.
There is much we can learn from Deming. This important post is a must-read.

I LOVE Deming’s work. Wrote an article about his research and applied it to education. Deming rocks!
LikeLike
During their ascendancy, the big Japanese companies almost never fired anybody. By the reformers’ logic, they should have been failures. Hmm, maybe successful organizations don’t depend on canning the low performers.
To play devils’ advocate (literally): Jeff Bezos seems to have rejected Deming, and yet look at Amazon.
LikeLike
I disagree with the author that teachers and their advocates are against “continuous improvement.” Every teacher I know is constantly striving to do better. However, the “continuous improvement” advocated by the deformers isn’t true continuous improvement. Its purpose is to demoralize and destroy, not to improve.
LikeLike
I had a similar reaction to the continuous improvement concept. While there are teachers who are masters at doing no more than required, I contend that they are rare. Being a teacher means that you are continually learning with the intent of growing as a teacher. “Continuous improvement” implies some metric to which we should be held accountable. Of course student test scores immediately come to mind.
I have trouble with a definition of learning that assumes a linear, uni-dimensional process. Anyone who has watched kids grow or even examined their own mental processes, recognizes that learning is not linear or uni-dimensional but a spiral process of growth and consolidation that occurs at different rates across different dimensions and is unique to each individual. We can agree on certain average age markers, but using them as a means to rank children and or their teachers seems counterproductive.
LikeLike
“I have trouble with a definition of learning that assumes a linear, uni-dimensional process. Anyone who has watched kids grow or even examined their own mental processes, recognizes that learning is not linear or uni-dimensional but a spiral process of growth and consolidation that occurs at different rates across different dimensions and is unique to each individual.”
Quite correct 2o2t!
I contend learning is like the mycelia of a fungus in that individual strands weave in and out, merge with other strands and then continue on weaving in and out, going along adding to the whole being of the fungus which may or may not culminate in the mushroom as a well defined structure with purpose.
LikeLike
Yup although thinking of the evolution my mental processes as akin to a fungus’ growth makes me think of “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 🙂
LikeLike
Jeff Bezos bought into Goldratt — THE GOAL — Same High Quality Thinking.
LikeLike
Administrators have adequate time to determine if a teacher will be an asset, Even after tenure, administrators are still in charge. I have seen a dismissal process implemented to replace a negligent, tenured teacher, despite what the media would have us believe.
Teaching is hard, complex work. The current teacher bashing agenda contributes to further demoralizing of staff members. The Japanese model emphasizes collaboration to improve instruction. Nobody realizes how isolating teaching is. Teachers rarely get to meet to discuss instruction. Most of the limited time they have is used to discuss logistics. My district offered an alternative evaluation of senior staff. We received one principal observation and had a project that had to be approved with results submitted in lieu of the traditional three observations. One year a colleague and I observed each other, and it was a positive learning experience for both of us. Our feedback was much more useful and specific than the type of general feedback we received from administration. It was one of the most informative times I had to discuss the practice and craft of instruction. It’s unfortunate that teachers are in survival mode now, and the primary concern is test results rather than how to improve instruction.
LikeLike
AMEN! It’s all about inclusion and collaboration and positive relationships. Reform needs to be about teamwork and respect for all involved.
LikeLike
For those who are not familiar enough with Deming to follow this conversation, some items from Deming’s “14 Points”:
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
• Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
• Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.
11. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
12. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective (see Ch. 3).
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd: good excerpts.
Let me add another from THE ESSENTIAL DEMING (2013, Joyce Orsini,ed., p. 171):
[start]
To learn about factory problems, for example, you have to talk to people—and I don’t mean by just walking around. Somebody once described good management as management by walking around. Well, it helps to walk around a bit, but you do not learn about the real problems that way. When you are just wandering around, everything look rosy. The only way to find out about problems is by talking to workers in a group setting. Just ask questions. Start off by asking, “What robs you of your pride of workmanship?” They will tell you.
Workers the world over tell me that they are the only ones who are truly interested in quality. All they ask for, they say, is a chance to take pride in their work. Today, I dare say that only 10 workers in a hundred take pride in their work.
There are several barriers at work here, one of which is continued emphasis on quantity. Talk to any worker and he will say that, although management talks about quality, they are still looking at the numbers. The truth is, if you don’t make the numbers, you are out of a job. Perception and rumor are what run the company.
[end]
Now consider this re education. Former LAUSD Supt. John Deasy who did some walking around while early on the job, into the classroom of substitute teacher Ms. Patrena Shankling. He didn’t have a clue what he was seeing or what to do about it or whether he should be doing anything about it at all, and he doubled down on being disruptive, abusive and incompetent.
And then consider another bit, i.e., all the blah-blah-blah of the self-styled “education reformers” that quality of teaching and learning will automatically follow the “hard data points” generated by high-stakes standardized testing. No, the workers [first and foremost teachers] are concerned with the quality of teaching and learning while the educrats and edupreneurs and edubullies have their blinkered eyes fixed on their ‘creatively disrupted’ numbers & stats and on the bottom line of $tudent $ucce$$.
IMHO, reading works by W. Edwards Deming will reward those for a “better education for all.”
😎
LikeLike
The key to the quality revolution was empowering workers to make the decisions with regard to quality. That’s what quality circles were all about. People want to do a good job, and given autonomy and a mission, they will do amazing things. But micromanage them top down and the result is disaster. Extrinsic punishment and reward does not work for cognitive tasks. It simply alienates. And when that becomes routine in schools, all is lost. Kids come into school curious and eager to learn. Then we kill that. The deformers simply don’t understand how people work. They haven’t a clue.
LikeLike
Slightly off topic, but Peter Green has written one of the best summaries of the reform movement I have read. The link to his blog site is here. The article is titled, “The Big Picture”
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/
His last sentence says it all (including the application of Demming’s principles):
” Education reform has literally nothing to do with providing quality education for America’s children.”
LikeLike
Thanks, NY Teacher: The article frames the type of thinking contributing to the current “abrogation of responsibility” toward public education. I hope the “crappy schools” ruling doesn’t embolden other feckless states.
LikeLike
Wow –thanks for the suggestion. Greene’s Big Picture is a tour de force (the link you give connects to Greene’s latest posts; you have to scroll down to find the Big Picture post).
LikeLike
ABSOLUTELY!!!! Deming went to Detroit. [Like present industrialists – THEY knew the answers. Were interested in making money, not in a quality product.] The Japanese listened. Detroit went broke. OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM was at fault – we MUST emulate the great Japanese schools. Now that the Japanese economy has tanked somehow we do not hear about the great the Japanese schools. Only that our schools are not emulating the thoughts of our great industrialists. Makes sense?
LikeLike
We don’t hear about the great Japanese schools because they have not really embraced Demings’ philosophy beyond the faculty lounge. I may be out of date, but I do not remember any praise for the classroom as a model of the philosophy of Deming.
LikeLike
I think it is important to remember that the work of teachers is with children and teens who are not yet adults, as well as their parents/guardians who retain some authority over how the students are treated. Teachers and their immediate supervisors and colleagues are also thrust together in social groups that are not just task oriented.
I am reluctant to let any business guru be taken as an authority in managing the education of children, even if the guru says the responsibility for “performance” and the well-being of the front-line workers is a matter for higher-ups to address.
Administrators, like teachers, are working with tiers of authority and their capacity to improve the environment for teaching and learning is more limited than ever. Indeed, the ultimate authority is USDE on so many matters, that the freedom of action of state, district, and school administrators to improve the work-life teachers is also narrowed.
In addition, every business guru has a clear bottom line for framing the managerial aspects of the business, namely profits. I think I am not alone in finding it repulsive to think of students and teachers and human capital in need of proper management to secure a decent return on investments and profit.
Finally, it cannot be said often enough that the institution of public education, and structure of schooling cannot alone be held responsible for all that influences the teaching and learning process–from the quality of prenatal and infant care to the decisions of politicians to micromanage schools.
In any case, the darling of business gurus for our era, foisted on schools, is not Deming but Peter Drucker (1954) and his management-by-objectives (MBO) with “incents” ( incentives) for workers. Now we have SLOs, Smart Goals, SGO, and so on– management schemes that require teachers to meet targets for learning and targets for growth in learning–and irrespective of the resources available to them.
MBO was a fad, tossed by many successful businesses within twenty years. It generated too much paperwork, encouraged gaming the system and rewarded the most competitive, not necessarily the most able workers. It was called a management scheme that bred “bureaupathological thinking.”
So–what we now have is this failed MBO fad from business, reincarnated as the SLO process–a process required in at least 27 states, and in half of these states it is strictly a computer-based operation with no face-to-face conversations between teachers and the evaluators. The SLO process was most recently marketed to and endorsed by every major education agency in the state of Maryland, and the Baltimore teacher’s union. These leaders–upper level managers–were sold a bill of goods that was first tried in Denver in 1999. It is designed to standardize how teachers think about their work and how they are evaluated.
SLOs function as VAM for about 70% of teachers.
Treating the major problems (and rewards) in education as a “business management” problem is not a great idea. USDE is, in fact, trying to micro-manage the work of every teacher, administrators, and the performance of every student as if education is just a business.
LikeLike
Thank you for having the words I don’t.
LikeLike
Ike isn’t in charge
Deming was hardly the first American to explore these ideas. Way back before World War I American progressives began to argue that the right kind of collaboration between workers and employers would support a prosperous democracy more effectively than a continuation of 19th century laissez-faire. (These folks were not Socialists, but they agreed with Socialists that laissez-faire ideas–Libertarianism in today’s world–simply could not serve as rules to govern urbanized, large-scale, modern societies.) By the turn of the 20th century, the laissez-faire approach to economic development had led to widespread social unrest, income inequality based on political power, monopolization of economic life, the distortion of democracy, family breakdown, financial instability, urban blight, and, perhaps most important from an economic point of view, the irrational use of capital. (Just consider the S&L crisis and subsequent “financialization” of the US economy. Economic “growth” in the US has meant glorious times for the wealthy, but stagnation for at least two-thirds of the American population for over thirty years now. What’s rational about this state of affairs?)
Deming brought many of these general political ideas to bear on management thinking. But, unlike in our time, in his day these general ideas had become a staple of sensible thinking about how to run a modern, highly industrialized, urbanized, polyglot, democracy. Eisenhower believed them. Even the Rockefellers believed them, or at least accepted them. The trustees of America’s universities believed them. Then came the 1980s. With the arrival of Reagan and the continuation of his reactionary politics among Clinton Democrats, a new political class emerged that seeks to replace the society created between FDR and Lyndon Johnson with a very different one. We continue to reap the whirlwind. Public education is now just another form of Communism to Republican and Democratic leaders alike.
But reactionary bi-partisan political elites cannot simply come out and say things like this because the American people support programs that both Republican and Democratic elites want to privatize.
The only way bi-partisan elites can overcome popular support for many government social programs is to create permanent fiscal crisis, and to use these crises to insist that popular social programs can be improved only by turning over tax dollars to private financial firms to administer, without public oversight, on behalf of the American people. Emanuel in Chicago, Cuomo in NY, Christie in NJ, ALEC legislators in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Duncan in DC…to name only some the most prominent among them.
The struggle to preserve and improve high quality, free, universal public education needs to be seen in the same context as the struggle to preserve Social Security, Medicare, government regulation of our food source and of the health of our environment, the 40-hour work week, unemployment insurance, anti-discrimination laws…and a host of other government functions needed to ensure that a society worth living in will exist once Wall Street is done doing whatever it wishes to do. A Koch Brothers America is not going to be much like the America imagined in the Declaration of Independence.
This characterization no doubt will sound extreme to Americans who believe that our two-party system works and is basically sane. It is hard to accept the possibility that our political leaders actually work overtime to destroy the society they claim to represent. Down deep many Americans still want to believe people like Ike are still in charge. How much more decay is needed to challenge this comfortable belief?
LikeLike
TAGO!
LikeLike
Great job connecting the dots, Steve. I like how you frame the attack on public education in the broader context of the War on Government. Yes, we are caught up in that war, whether we like it or not. If we believe in our hearts that government is essentially bad, then we cannot whole-heartedly defend public education, because it is a government program.
LikeLike
Professor John Seddon pays tribute to Deming as he points out the problems of Sir Michael Barber’s system of “Deliverology.” Sir Michael Barber was an adviser to Tony Blair for four years, worked at McKinsey & Company as did David Coleman, and now heads up Pearson International publishing. The Common Core is based on Barber’s Deliverology method: top down, command and control, set targets, and punish people on the front lines as the targets are not met. Didn’t work in England; won’t work here.
LikeLike
Dawn: many thanks for the embedded video.
😎
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
from the article:
“In Japanese schools, Deming’s work is associated with the wildly popular “lesson study,” a collaborative, continuous-improvement approach to lesson planning by small groups of teachers, which is just being discovered by American educators.”
yes yes yes
Real quality improvement flows from the bottom up. You know what flows from the top down.
btw, Lesson Study takes time. Lots of it. Just what the current deform regime is stealing from teachers.
LikeLike
Deming’s focus on system level improvement as opposed to individual workers rings a bell, particularly the following point:
“A Lesser Category of Obstacles: Placing blame on workforces who are only responsible for 15% of mistakes where the system designed by management is responsible for 85% of the unintended consequences” — from ,a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming”>wikipedia
In fact the American Statistical Association made precisely the same point in their position paper on VAMs (with almost the very same numbers!)
“VAMs should be viewed within the context of quality improvement, which distinguishes aspects of quality that can be attributed to the system from those that can be attributed to individual teachers, teacher preparation programs, or schools. Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.”
Research on VAMs has been fairly consistent that aspects of educational effectiveness that are measurable and within teacher control represent a small part of the total variation in student test scores or growth; most estimates in the literature attribute between 1% and 14% of the total variability to teachers.
This is not saying that teachers have little effect on students, but that variation among teachers accounts for a small part of the variation in scores.The majority of the variation in test scores is attributable to factors outside of the teacher’s control such as student and family background, poverty, curriculum, and unmeasured influences”
LikeLike
A quote from Deming on collaboration: “What we need to do is learn to work in the system, by which I mean that everybody, every team, every platform, every division, every component is there not for competitive profit or recognition, but for contribution to the system as a whole on a win-win basis.”
The theme of collaboration is a strong one for Deming; and his distaste for competition is also evident. It seems to me we in education need to re-examine the emphasis we put on competition in this era of Race to the Top. Go back and read Alfie Kohn’s No Contest, the Case Against Competition. And not to be self promoting, but please visit my website CooperativeGames.com for more criticism of competition as applied to education as well as much more on a very real antidote to the problem–cooperative games.
LikeLike