With today's average child spending more time with a gaming console rather than outside or reading a book. It's not an insult yet a MUST to move education into the gamming world and allow our children to embrace education as apposed to rebel. I have a 4 year old daughter that already reads and writes to an extent, and it is from my interaction with her and the games (DS, Leapfrog) that we play together, she is empowered and she controls her education at this level with my leadership. Her DS and Leapfrog has become like her American Express card, she won't leave home without it. Educational Gamming is the most positive direction to take, if any serious change is going to be made to our educational system.

Having worked in the auto industry in quality assurance, I enjoyed the analogy and the reference to Demming. I'm glad that the writers/philosophers at Grockit have recognized that 1) much of the analysis of the current education system is driven by recognition of symptoms and not root causes, and 2) that the root cause of problems with education are process based, like many of the problems in the auto industry. (except for those underfunded health care and pension reserves... sorry, wrong forum...)

Anyway, to take the analogy one step further, in the auto industry, we keep metrics such as "first time through" (the percentage of parts that are compliant based on form, fit and function after only one run through the manufacturing line) and the "cost of quality" (the total impact on labor and overhead that is required to re-work non-compliant parts). These, and many other metrics, are part and parcel to the "lean manufacturing" philosophies originally adopted by Toyota. In the end, how do we fix the education process to drive down the "scrap rate" (ie:failure/dropout rates) and the cost to re-work parts (ie: getting students to back to a level commensurate with whatever criteria are used to judge "societal" compliance to education? How do we even begin quantifying those variances?

Wow, a couple of amazing comments. Thanks!!

Let's get a Demming enthusiast to head The Department of Education!

@ GD - You're making a fatal flaw in your daughter's educational future. The primary driver of intelligence beyond genetics is inquisitiveness. By removing personal interaction from her early days, you are making the critical mistake that poor parents make. Wealthier parents have far less free time, but spend it interacting with their kids and engaging them. Poorer parents throw their kids in front of the TV or a video game. So what you ask? Your daughter is not experiencing the world around her. If she's on her DS, she's not going to notice the fact the sky is blue and ask you about it. Yes, that's an extreme and unlikely example, but I use it to make a point. Computer literacy is crucial - do that at home. When she leaves home, engage her, talk to her, help her expand her vocabulary.

@ Farb - you're planning on teaching kids SAT vocabulary so you may want to check your posts before posting them. "Ary" means "one that relates to or is connected to." You meant to say "awry" and I got it, but a teenager learning vocabulary will learn the wrong thing. Just because you're not an "education company", doesn't preclude you from the responsibility of having high-quality content that teaches students correctly.

@An Educator I couldn't agree with you more. And, as no formal educator or educational book has ever contained a typo or a piece of incorrect information, you must be right. History books in school, for example, are filled with totally non-biased 100% accurate and fair interpretations of history.

This is a blog, it's read for spelling, grammar and type issues before it's published. This blog is not a source of grammar rules or spelling examples. To point out a typo as a sign of some failure as though we "preclude ourselves from the responsibility of having high-quality content that teaches students correctly" is really an over reaction that has little value. This blog is not a source to "teach students correctly" spelling. It's a place to share thoughts and ideas.

The fact is that every teacher, institution, person, organization makes errors. Spelling errors, communication errors, choice errors. Helping people learn from their mistakes, intentional or otherwise, is nice.

Are you a real public school educator? Because your style of informing folks on their typos is pretty condescending and I hope no poor kid has to learn in that style.

@ Farb. Unfortunately, sarcasm is not easily expressed or effective in blog comments. You miss the greater question which is your credibility. For someone who is claiming to help students learn and is the head of such a company, you should really think about the message it conveys when you make blatant errors including ones made in your response to my comment.

Just because I'm an educator does not mean I have to teach at a public school. We all make mistakes. However, if no one were to point out these mistakes we wouldn't learn much at all. Here are some tips on how to improve your blog:

a) Read your argument back to yourself. Why is learning from a machine really insulting? What would be a counter argument to your own?

b) Post your article into MS Word first and run a spell and grammar check.

c) Wait for "An Educator" to come along and post a response.

d) Politely and calmly respond so as not to seem like you can't take gentle criticism and try to argue logic and facts.

I don't think your criticism is gentle. And several other readings of it have vetted that for me.

I didn't say that learning from a machine is insulting. I re-iterated a point from a person that is incredibly well versed on the matter. I proposed it as a possibility, not a fact. Ackoff has worked with schools and organizations directly to help them become more circular and democratic. I have personally done the same thing in my large classrooms with similarly positive effects.

You're not arguing facts. The 'ary' that got you all bent out of shape was a typo not a lack of awareness about the spelling of the word 'awry'. Almost every educational text can be found to have errors of spelling, grammar and facts. Your argument just doesn't make sense. So, while this blog, unlike educational texts that also have errors, does not claim to exist for the purpose of grammar or spelling education, it still manages to be relatively understandable. But, you make no argument against educational texts that are purposed in this regard. Therefore, you are biased and attacking. And, while your noticing of the typo is useful, your method of educating is medieval.

If I was biased then why would I use logic and facts? To you, biased is anyone who disagrees with you. Your responses are childish and show a lack of maturity. You shouldn't take it personally when people point out errors or make arguments against what you're saying. We're all adults here and I'd hope you act like one.

Again, I'm done with your blog because I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings, just to debate and clearly this isn't the place for that since opposing opinions and facts against your opinions are unwelcome and clearly hurt you.

Could not agree more. I've been attending a state university where my peers and I all have noticed the factory approach. Inflexible (and out of date) curriculum, little to no coordination with the business sector, and most disturbingly, a focus on information instead of knowledge.

Pack'em in, pack their heads, get'em out of here seems to be the thinking...

I agree with that we are set up as a factory producing defective products, but from my point of view I am disturbed by the fact that in this analogy teachers short-circuited Number 5 robotic arms.

A myriad of metric have been heaped onto the factory floor. Each year we have a new test to create the data we need to make data driven decisions when we should people propelled pronouncements (I know that pronouncement probably isn't the best choice, but I can't pass up an opportunity to alliterate.).

So now the question is do we revert to an agrarian metaphor in which we cultivate minds, or is there a better gaming metaphor. Are teachers avatars descended from the realm of the gods to the world of the classroom to impart knowledge? Do we take technology back to its roots, techne and logos</> using the theory of craft to introduce its sibling episteme</>?

That last paragraph was written in order portray a certain level of knowledge which I may or may not currently possess. If I have made errors in logic, errors usage, or a tear in the space-time continuum, please feel free to email me.

Please excuse the bad HTML. I thought I had fixed it.

I agree that we need a revolution in schools on a lot of levels...and I agree with another one of your blogs about the factory nature of schools. I have read Deming carefully, and his principles have been bastardized by the school systems. I believe that school systems need change...I believe that technology can help in that endeavor. Our schools, despite their weaknesses are productive at teaching some things, but what upsets me most is that the we accept passive compliance instead of active engagement and creation. I believe that we can only teach knowledge, skills, and attitudes...but I know that our schools concentrate way too much on the knowledge component. The knowledge component that is stressed is the information rather than the conceptual, and this again is a problem.
Going back to an earlier comment that I wrote...I'd like to address the history and function of grading. Currently, 91% of 3000+ schools surveyed by the College Board reported using an A-F or Numerical grading scheme....clearly the quantification of grades and ranking of students is pervasive! However, prior to the late 1700's students were not even given grades...they received feedback on their performance via written narrative. by the 1850's Harvard was using a numerical grading system, but it was taken to a new level around WWI by the US Army. The army began aptitude testing on a large scale and used the multiple choice method of 'assessment' was born. In the 1940's, the College Entrance Examination Board commissioned the creation of the SAT which was intended to predict success in college (which we now know accounts for a 25% success rate in college). The utilization of multiple choice became so pervasive that eventually a points model began to be used to grade essays, oral presentations, etc. The quantifiable approach to student 'evaluation' has become so common, that most educators don't question it.
Recently, I asked a group of teachers if ever felt that they (as students) had received a grade that was not in line with their level of understanding. I also asked about how they calculated grades for their students. I asked them point blank what is the purpose of grades and what do they mean? We arrived at a number of conclusions:
First, grades can mean different things:

-non-achievement factors like effort, behavior, attendance and responsibility are usually included
-factual knowledge of material or skills may not be represented accurately
-grades and assignments are given different weights and usually lumped together

If a grade of a 65 for student A can mean something different for student B...how does the grade of a 65 communicate this difference to either student and give them a road map for improvement? Grades are used institutionally for:

-college-career planning
-matriculation and retention
-course placement
-instructional planning (but most teachers are not sure of how grades should affect their plans)
-feedback to students
Finally, I'd challenge you to think of anything you now know really well. How did you come to know the thing you know so well? Were you motivated by a grade? Are grades the product or byproduct of learning? I believe that grades reduce the quality of thinking, reduce the interest in learning, and dilute the process they are purported to measure. I believe that grades reduce our preference for challenging and meaningful tasks.
Now, coming full circle to one of your blog posts about GMAT student-to-student learning using a fax machine...I know that technology can be applied within fairly traditional school systems in a manner that causes change. This change in the learning process and the feedback systems we use can make a construct where understanding is the goal. I've got a number of marketable ideas, but need some help in making them a reality.

Sorry about that last paragraph...I had meant to cut it, but here goes nothing. My point about the faxing of GMAT questions was that it is process oriented rather than product oriented. In other words, you set up a collaborative process (to teach one another) which is the foundation for cooperative learning and is a staple of highly effective classrooms. Unfortunately, what passes for cooperative learning in many classrooms is simply group work. (not the same thing at all) Learning is all about feedback and taking risks...and then trying again....with feedback... So any piece of technology be it a chalkboard, fax, or program that has a value added piece of the process will promote engagement by fostering the collaborative process

As a relatively new teacher (starting my third full-time year this fall) coming into public education with a checkered (chequered?) past embracing the endless hypenation process common to Angeleno survivalists (actress-development exec-screenwriter-editor-entrepreneur-author-wife-mother) (not necessarily in that order) I must say I totally agree with your school-as-factory analogy. I imagine your product development has something to do with answering my ongoing question about what to do about it. In addition to being a teacher and a learner, I am also a mother of six (3 biological, 3 step) children, each of whom is a unique person with a unique learning style,developmental timetable, and diverse talents. Personally I am prejudiced toward the Montessori preschool and kindergarten experience two of them enjoyed. As I finish up my masters studies I find myself fascinated by the idea of structures of thought,of how minds and thinking are constrained by these structures, and how much of this is inherent to the human psyche, how much is input through education, how much is "osmosed" from environment and culture--also how these structures constrain experience and behavior, and to what degree they can be established, or disestablished, as the case or need might be.

What troubles me at present is that while there seems to be a general awareness that the old industrial model of education needs to change, the change is being conceptualized from within the old paradigm-- how to educate young minds for business purposes. How is this any different than educating for the assembly line? So now we are going to retool the entire system to meet the needs of a globalized economy-- US taxpayers are going to fund this process, to the benefit of multinational corporations? It strikes me that this is just another way of passing production costs to the consumer while increasing corporate profits.

I would like to know if anyone anywhere is thinking new thoughts about education, if there is, to quote Koheleth, anything "new under the sun" when it comes to thinking about developing and using the (limitless?) potential of the human mind, especially as coupled with the vitality of youth. How about you Grockiteers? What is revolutionary about what you are doing when it comes to advancing human potential? I hear criticism tantamount to kicking the dead horse. But what's new?

Whoops. Left out my point, in response to the previous post. I was going somewhere in that post: If you go take a look at a Montessori preschool or kindergarten classroom, you will see a deceptively simple environment that fosters the independent development of the structures of mind that result in intrinsically motivated learning. So to take your pair-share learning to the most effective level, you need first to cultivate the structures of thought that facilitate the kind of learning you wish to produce. This means someone has to set up or design the initial learning experiences of the learning pair, and once they have internalized these learning processes, THEN they are set up for the kind of creative endeavor you seem to be expecting.