Peter Greene read and enjoyed Andrea Gabor’s book “After the Education Wars.”
Andrea Gabor is a business journalist by trade, and it’s our great good fortune that she followed the thread of business-style reform into the world of education. Her recent book, After the Education Wars: How Smart Schools Upend the Business of Reform, is an invaluable addition to the literature of ed reform– not the faux reform that has been foisted on us for the past decades, but actual improvement of schools and education. With a journalist’s keen eye for detail and gift for story-telling, Gabor delivers compact, fair and gripping tales of education reform in four cities, showing both what worked and what didn’t. The book combines thorough research with sharp insight and– well, there are plenty of books about ed reform that are “interesting if you’re into that sort of thing.” Gabor’s book is just plain interesting and hugely readable. If you’re afraid this review is too long to read, let me cut to the chase– read this book.
Gabor is a fan of W. Edwards Deming, the American engineer who helped Japan create their post-war industrial boom but who was long ignored in this country. The story she finds in business-driven ed reform is the story of businessmen who keep learning and applying the wrong lessons, and whose distrust of educators combine with their arrogance about their own expertise result in repeated versions of the same mistakes. They keep returning to a topdown, hierarchal, siloed organization driven with carrot-and-stick incentives “about as successful,” says Gabor, “as a Ford Pinto or a Deep Water Horizon drilling operation.” But the debates about industrial management in this country were largely won by the Taylorites, who put their faith in sort-of-scientific data and a view of workers as rats in a Skinner box. The Deming systems approach, valuing an atmosphere of trust and empowerment.
This may all seem very esoteric, but it shakes out in some important ways. To oversimplify– a Taylorite approach says that individuals mess up the system, and you make the system better by rooting out the “bad” individuals, while a Deming approach says that problem individuals are signs of flaws in your system. You can see the Taylorite approach manifest in the long-standing reformer emphasis on finding bad teachers and firing them as a ay to fix schools. My favorite Deming observation is about deadwood in an organization. Deming asked if it was dead when you hired it or did you hire a live tree and then kill it? Either way, it’s your system (and management) are to blame.
Gabor uses five big chapters to tell the stories of four big systems; each story is fascinating and instructive in its own way.
Greene describes the five big chapters that show education reform done wrong and education reform done right.
I love her chapter on New Orleans.
Excellent!
And yes, read the book.
It’s a tribute to the country when writers focus on “reform done wrong”, presumably it’s done wrong because it serves corporate interests.
Unrelated-
The Center for American Progress’ Director of Innovation for K-12 Education Policy, who is charged with writing about “personalized learning, charter schools and effective use of student data” was formerly a director at Foundation for Excellence in Education.
Unrelated –
In the Public Interest posted an article about the Foundation for Excellence in Education which summarized as follows, “E-mails between the Foundation, funded by Jeb Bush, and state education officials show that the Foundation is writing state education laws and regulations in ways that could benefit its corporate funders.”
Education is not a business (who said that?) so why is ANY business model applicable?
If all you have is different models of hammers (business models), everything looks like a nail.
There are aspects of public education/schooling that should be viewed as business aspects, e.g., proper accounting methods, purchasing techniques, real estate transactions, etc. . . .
But business practices of accountability should not and cannot be applied to the teaching and learning process that occurs day in day out, hour by hour, minute by minute where the almost infinite variations of that process with the various students and teachers make business accountability impossible. Business accountability is about control of every aspect of the business. That type of control is absolutely impossible in a good, decent and just teaching and learning environment.
To attempt such overall/arching control of the teaching and learning process can only guarantee its failure and guarantees false data being used in unethical and unjust ways.
Duane,
I just find the whole business framing Taylor vs Deming to be weird.
Deming was an engineer who concerned himself with manufacturing organizations and though he may have made some observations that apply to other organizations including schools, as someone wisely said schools are not businesses, so any model that was designed for business is bound to be flawed if applied to schools, no matter how well it applies to business.
Demings was a statistician and quite relevantly, one of the things that Demings concerned himself with and emphasized when working with Japanese manufacturers (eg, Auto industry) was reduction in variation of manufactured goods.
I’m sorry, but reduction in variation sure does not sound like something worthy of emulating in schools.
In fact, the whole idea of manufacturing is ill suited to schools.
When it comes to schools, I think people really need to get as far away from the business models as their feet will take them.
And of course, the problem with even talking about Demings in the context of schools is that some will say, Ah yes, he had some great ideas: let’s reduce variation in schools. It fixed Japanese business after WWII and it will surely fix our schools.
No matter how noble the discussion starts out, it will get twisted around. You can count on it.
Deming, not Demings
In fact, as Yong Zhao has pointed out, variation is precisely what has made American schools a source of creative individuals.
Reduction in variation is just the opposite of what we want to do in schools.
“Nonstandard Deviation”
(versification of Yong Zhao – aka “The Zhao
of Education”)
Deviation from the norm’s
Anathema to school reforms
But variance is future’s seed
And not a thing that we should weed
Reduction in variation basically equals standardization
“I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings. Standardization is a great peril which threatens American culture. . . .” — Albert Einstein, 1929
Einstein had a lot of very astute things to say about education — nearly 100 years ago!
Too bad almost nobody listens.
“New York’s education innovators and Bloomberg’s business people couldn’t have been more different. Yet they shared one important thing in common: a determination not only to improve schools, but also to create smaller, leaner schools that would be more responsive to the needs of students and to shake up the education bureaucracy and the status quo. It was a unique opportunity but one that would never be fully realized” — Andrea Gabor, After the Education Wars
/// End of quote
Ha ha ha.
Maybe Gabor should have asked Susan Schwartz and some of the others who post here and actually experienced it about the motives of these people.
“Never be fully realized”?
I’m sorry, but Gabor is delusional if she actually believes what she wrote.
Bloomberg and Klein knew nothing about schools, teaching, learning, children, poverty. They knew business. They loved disruption. They reorganized the NYC schools four times in eight years. They created hundreds of small schools, manyof which failed, and they closed them and replaced them with more small schools. Many too small to offer a full curriculum. Some absurd ones, like the High School for the Violin, the High School for Firefighters, etc.
My problem with that book is the whole framing of the issue.
Gabor is a business reporter, so she is looking at education through business glasses.
Sure, she recognizes that the business model that was applied to schools was bad.
But the implicit assumption that there is actually a “good” business model to apply to schools (Ala Deming or anyone else) seems to me to be fundamentally wrongheaded.
Deming has good insights that are useful in defending schools against predatory business practices. Read Gabor’s book on Deming, chapter 9, “The Man Who Invented Quality,” sells on amazon for about $1.
Brilliant rationale to oppose stack ranking, merit pay. Sets employee against employee. Makes them think of short-term self-interest rather than being part of a team. When there are problems, don’t blame the front-line workers, blame the system. Answer for a good corporation: hire good people; let them do their job; support them if they need help. Everyone wants to find joy in their work. Let them. Accountability lies with top management, not workers.
Good point, Poet.
Deming invented quality?
What was the Sistine Chapel?
Chopped liver?
How about the Antikythera mechanism from the 2nd century BC?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
In all seriousness, Deming did not invent quality. What he did was improve the quality of manufactured goods by rediscovering something that people had known about for a very long time: that quality results from pride in workmanship.
Michelangelo certainly knew about quality long before Deming, as did whoever produced that amazing Antikythera mechanism.
editorial license!
The editor who invented The Man who Invented Quality?
Schools are not businesses. They are a public good”
Who said that?😀