Principle 6: Institute Training on the Job
Common management myths (see here and here) must be replaced by sound guiding principles. In this post, I’ll describe the sixth such principle, Institute Training on the Job. It is worth noting that the 14 Principles for Educational Systems Transformation are mutually supporting, so it is important to understand all of them rather than studying them in isolation. An in-depth discussion of the full set of Principles for Transformation can be found in Chapter 3 of my recently released book Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools.
Principle 6: Institute thorough job-related training for students, teachers, staff, and management, so that everyone can make better contributions to the system. New skills are required to keep up with changes in cognitive science, curricula, methods, learning experience design, technology, teaching techniques, services, etc.
There is an important distinction between Principle 6 (institute training) and Principle 13 (institute a vigorous program of education). Principle 6 refers to the foundations of training for management and for new employees whereas Principle 13 refers to continual education and self-improvement on the job. Training is for skills. Education is for the development of knowledge. Training involves learning how to do a particular job within the system using a particular set of methods and tools. Its purpose is to allow a worker to know exactly what their job is.
A major aim of training is reduced variation in methods. Educators at all levels are likely familiar with the problems that occur when classroom management practices and teaching methods vary widely from classroom-to-classroom within the same school. In many schools, some teachers have highly structured and disciplined classrooms while other teachers allow almost anything to go. What are the effects of these mixed messages on the overall culture of the school?
On the instructional side, what happens when three third grade teachers each have their preferred methods and sequencing for teaching math? Some combination of these third graders wind up in the same fourth grade classroom the following year, and this creates significant issues for the teacher. In taking the system's view the fourth-grade teacher is the customer of the three third grade classrooms. However, those individual third grade classrooms were optimized instead of the system as a whole, and this very well may be an issue that can be tied back to training.
Training involves learning methods that should later be observed in the person’s behavior. As a result, a trainer needs a good understanding of operational definitions because they must understand that particular job in a clear-cut way. For example, a trainer working with new teachers on their ability to deliver an effective lesson must have a clear operational definition for effective lesson. Without this understanding on the trainer’s part, the new teachers will not be able to do their job in the way the school system has intended.
When planning any training, systems leaders also must keep the following formula in mind:
Training effectiveness = f[(Quality of subject matter) x (Probability of use) [1]
This equation is seemingly obvious as is the idea of instituting a thorough job training program in the first place. It simply states that the effectiveness of any training will be the function of the quality of the subject matter times the probability of its use. My sense is that most systems leaders recognize that there might be issues on both fronts – quality of training and probability of use – within their organizations. Less appreciated is the idea that in order for training to be used, there often have to be changes to organizational systems that enable the training to be put to use.
One way systems leaders can provide a high probability of use for training is by placing new employees on process improvement teams. At United Schools Network, the improvement process used by these teams is built around three questions:
What are we trying to accomplish?
How will we know a change is an improvement?
What change can we make that will result in improvement?[2]
Within each of these questions there are process steps, guiding questions, and tools by which to visualize the team’s thinking. For example, Step 1 in the improvement process is “See the System.” Here team members define the system for improvement, state the system aim, identify opportunities for improvement within the target system, prioritize those opportunities, and charter the project. It should be apparent how participation on such a team would help train the new employee in a process that allows them to understand the system within which they are working in a much deeper way than if they sat through a presentation on the organizational structure of the school system. Students also can participate in these teams. In doing so, they come to learn a scientific approach to improving problems through training in improvement methods and tools (involving students in improvement work is discussed further in Chapters 6 and 10 of Win-Win).
The benefits of training fall into the category of “unknown and unknowable” measures that systems leaders must manage. However, training is often one of the first things to go when finances become tight. This is exactly the wrong way to think about its benefits. Proper training of new employees and students costs very little in proportion to the total costs involved with those that are new to your system over the months and years they are associated with the organization. The benefit of new employees and students understanding their role within the system gives you a fighting chance of achieving your mission. And this benefit does not even include the unknowable benefits to the school system when the employee or student gains satisfaction from doing a good job, and thus becomes more committed to continual improvement in the future.
Blog Series: 14 Principles for Educational Systems Transformation
The four components of the System of Profound Knowledge work in concert to provide us with profound insights about how our organizations operate so that leaders can in turn work to optimize the whole of our systems. However, there is a step beyond simply avoiding the management myths. The next step is to be able to think and make decisions using the lens provided by the System of Profound Knowledge. This is where the core set of 14 Principles come into play. In this series, I’m describing the principles that will enable you to move from theory to practice with the Deming philosophy.
***
John A. Dues is the Chief Learning Officer for United Schools Network, a nonprofit charter management organization that supports four public charter schools in Columbus, Ohio. He is also the author of the newly released book Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools. Send feedback to jdues@unitedschoolsnetwork.org.
Notes
James F. Leonard, The New Philosophy for K-12 Education: A Deming Framework for Transforming America’s Schools (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press, 1996), 201
Gerald J. Langley, Ronald D. Moen, Kevin M. Nolan, Thomas W. Nolan, Clifford L. Norman, and Lloyd P. Provost, The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance, 2nd Ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009)