Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [525]
In taking note of how effectively the TOC thinking processes could be translated into practical and highly beneficial outcomes in a classroom and, in keeping with his own lifetime goal, Dr. Goldratt created TOC for Education (TOCfE) in 1995 as a not-for-profit organization to disseminate the TOC logic-based tools and common sense methodologies to all who educate others. Since then, TOCfE has reached more than 200,000 adult education stakeholders with an impact on more than 8 million children in 21 countries.4 Just like the explanation needed to reveal why these tools work with children all over the world, perhaps the most important ingredient in how TOCfE has continued to grow, develop, and continuously improve worldwide is not so much the timeline but the why-line.
In TOC, the whys of creating change that leads to desired and ongoing improvements requires the examination of three questions:
What to Change?
What to Change to?
How to Cause the Change?
The purpose of this chapter is to apply these three questions to the education of children and to answer them by using Goldratt’s Thinking Processes (TP). This framework will also provide the organization of the chapter, which concludes with a summary.
What to Change?
Many times, we create solutions for problems without first really understanding what causes them. In such cases, we may end up with temporary or partial fixes and the problems resurface. Thus, there is an important distinction between solutions that bring change and solutions that bring improvements. As Eli Goldratt describes this reality, “Although every improvement is a change, not every change is an improvement.”5
Most educators can recount a litany of solutions and reform programs that have brought considerable change to schools but not the envisioned improvements needed to prepare all children sufficiently to become productive and responsible adults. Thus, in spite of all best practices and the good intentions and hard work of talented, dedicated educators, many symptoms of an elusive core problem remain, such as:
Many students do not know how to connect, interpret, and question information in what they read or hear.
Many students memorize rather than analyze information.
Many students do not know how to solve problems and are dependent on others to do so for them.
Some students do not perceive what they are learning to be relevant to their lives and therefore disengage.
Many students do not know how to apply what they learn.
Many students do not think through consequences before taking actions.
Some students do not know how to control impulsive behaviors that sometimes lead to violence.
Some students leave before graduating.
Maintaining the highest standards for meeting the learning and behavior needs of all students requires more resources (especially time) than are currently available to educators.
These ongoing undesirable effects impact all education stakeholders who look to the education system to prepare youths to be responsible citizens and productive workers in an increasingly competitive, global marketplace. Therefore, with so much at stake, when changes do not lead to desired and expected improvements, there is understandable disappointment and frustration. Unfortunately, these outcomes usually result in explanations written in the language of blame, which are typically directed at those considered being responsible for implementing the chosen solutions, even if they were not part of the process of creating them. If we can—and should—assume that those in education want to be good educators, then it is also reasonable to assume that they are justifiably sensitive to criticism that impugns their abilities, motivation, and especially their purpose.
Educators feel overwhelmed by the expectations of all stakeholders—expectations