To: nihil who wrote (66714 ) 12/15/1999 9:50:00 AM From: greenspirit Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
Certainly, when you create a completely government controlled organization to deliver a product. Eventually, because the system is impervious to competition, it will feed on itself for growth. What incentive is there in our current system to look for ways to cut costs and streamline the delivery of knowledge? The answer is, next to none. Let's look at it another way, what do you believe would happen if we had the exact same number of children entering the public school system each year. Do you believe the system would look for ways to streamline current practices and hire less and less people the next year, or the year after. Or is it more likely the system and people in it would grow, irrespective of the amount of customers it needs to serve? I believe the latter. Then the question is why? The answer is because the system is really not connected to the needs and desires of the customer. Instead, it's most important customer is the politician which feeds the source of the systems revenue. And that's what the reward structure is built upon. The principle, administrator, or board member that is best at influencing the sources of revenue, is the one most likely one to rise to the top. Not the one who is innovative and looking for ways to streamline the delivery of knowledge. In the final analysis, all systems eventually do what you reward the people in them for doing. I ask you, what are teachers, principles and administrators of public education rewarded for? Are they rewarded for streamlining the system and making the delivery of knowledge less costly for the customers? Or are they instead rewarded for growing the current system irrespective of the customer? As every organization grows beyond the boundaries of one persons control, a bureaucracy will form. That's a given. The challenge is to differentiate and control the system in a way which mitigates the breath of this bureaucratic growth. The control of this comes from the rewards. Rewards are tied to the needs of the system. What does the system of public education need for survival. Does it need satisfied customers? Does it need to minimize costs associated with the product? Or does it instead need to build relationships that ensure long term funding? This structure then creates a feedback loop where people who rise to the top are not challenger of the status quo, but politicians who form relationships with the funding sources. As these relationships are formed, power and influence centers at the top of the organizations and thus hierarchical walls are formed to prevent needed *change*. While the leaders talk about the wonders and beauty of public education, the customers look on in amazement and wonder why their costs keep rising while the quality keeps deteriating. And decent teachers frustrated and hopeless to effect any meaningful change, eventually fall prey to the overachieving bureaucratic who beats them into subsmissiveness. True leaders rarely rise to the top, instead leadership is replace by management. Where promotion, perks, privilege, and power are the name of the game, and awe and reverence for status is everything. Where would management be without the inflexible paper processing, attention to proper social, political affiliation and vigilant watch over habits and attitudes that gratify the system and satisfy security be? Michael p.s. sorry, in a hurry, no time to fix grammar and spelling mistakes. Hope it's not too painful. Have a great day all!