THE DEMING SOLUTION: How Quality Management Principles Could Transform California Education

What the father of modern quality control would say about a $140 billion system that refuses to measure its core process—and just turned a 2-year problem into a 50-year catastrophe

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

W. Edwards Deming revolutionized American manufacturing by applying rigorous statistical process control, eliminating waste, and building quality into systems rather than inspecting it afterward. His principles transformed industries from automobiles to aerospace—yet education remains stubbornly resistant to basic quality management.

California's education system violates virtually every Deming principle: it funds inputs rather than outcomes, adds requirements without measuring impact, blames workers for systemic failures, and obsessively inspects end products (student testing) while refusing to measure the production process (instructional time allocation). The state's response to pandemic learning loss perfectly demonstrates what happens when organizations violate Deming's core axiom—"you can't manage what you don't measure, and measuring falsely is worse than not measuring at all." By hiding learning gaps with grade inflation rather than addressing them honestly, California turned what should have been a 2-year, $5 billion recovery into a 50-year, $8 trillion generational catastrophe affecting 2.5-3 million students.

Charter schools' ability to achieve superior results with 40% less funding suggests Deming was right: the problem is systemic, not resource-based. Charters inadvertently stumbled into Deming principles through operational flexibility and performance accountability—they measure actual learning, eliminate waste, iterate quickly, and build quality into instruction rather than discovering failure through end-stage testing. Traditional districts trapped in compliance theater optimize for political mandates rather than student learning, exactly the dysfunction Deming spent his career teaching manufacturers to avoid.

This analysis applies Deming's 14 Points for Management, the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, and Statistical Process Control to California's $140 billion K-12 system—revealing why education reform consistently fails and what genuine quality improvement would require. The choice is stark: California can continue current trajectory (claim success while delivering failure, blame workers for system problems, hide defects with corrupted measurements) or apply proven quality management principles and achieve the world-class results its resources should produce. The pandemic learning loss response proves the urgency—California chose grade inflation over honest measurement, avoided $5 billion in intervention costs, and created $8 trillion in generational damage. This is Deming's nightmare: a system that hides problems instead of solving them, optimizes for short-term political optics instead of long-term quality, and destroys value on a scale that may be unprecedented in American institutional history.

TL;DR

Deming's Core Principle: "You can't manage what you don't measure"—California refuses to measure how instructional time is used, making systematic improvement impossible.

The 14 Points Violated: California fails nearly all of Deming's management principles—no constancy of purpose (shifting priorities every legislative session), accumulates waste (adds mandates, never subtracts), blames workers for system failures (teachers held accountable for outcomes the system makes impossible), optimizes subsystems instead of whole system (each level optimizes different metrics, nobody owns student learning end-to-end).

PDCA Cycle Broken: California can Plan (adopt standards) and Check (test students), but can't Act (improve) without measuring the Do (instructional process). Stuck in endless DO-CHECK loop without ability to systematically improve.

Red Bead Experiment: Pandemic edition shows students experiencing "red beads" (chronic absenteeism, failure) because the system (grade inflation → promotion without mastery → curriculum mismatch) produces these outcomes. Blaming students is like blaming workers for red beads when the box contains 20% red beads—problem is system design, not worker effort.

Charter School Natural Experiment: Charters apply Deming principles (mostly accidentally)—honest measurement, rapid iteration, performance accountability, waste elimination. Result: 40% better cost-effectiveness. Traditional districts violate Deming principles—compliance focus, slow decision-making, input accountability, mandate burden. Result: Worse outcomes despite more resources. This proves problem is operational, not resource-based.

The Pandemic Catastrophe as Ultimate Deming Violation: Grade inflation corrupted the measurement system (hid learning loss), prevented intervention (can't fix what you claim doesn't exist), allowed problem to compound (gaps widened as students promoted unprepared), created cascading failure (chronic absenteeism → dropout → permanent damage). Cost: $8 trillion for violating "measure honestly" principle.

Statistical Process Control: California can't distinguish common cause (systemic) from special cause (fixable) problems because it doesn't measure the process. Treats all variation as special cause (blame teachers/students) when most is common cause (system design produces outcomes).

The Choice: Apply quality management (measure process, eliminate waste, continuous improvement, systems thinking) and thrive, or continue compliance theater (inspection without process control, blame workers, hide failures) and accept civilizational decline.

Introduction: The Man Who Saved American Manufacturing

In 1950, American manufacturing was in crisis. "Made in Japan" was synonymous with cheap, shoddy goods. American products dominated global markets through volume, not quality. Factory floors ran on command-and-control management: supervisors demanded productivity, workers did what they were told, inspectors caught defects afterward, and management blamed workers when quality suffered.

W. Edwards Deming—a statistician and engineer trained in physics at Yale—saw this system was fundamentally broken. You couldn't inspect quality into products. Quality had to be built into the process.

His insight came from statistical work during World War II, where he'd helped American manufacturers achieve unprecedented production volumes for the war effort. But Deming recognized that American industry's success came from scale, not quality. When Japanese manufacturers invited him to lecture in 1950, he found an eager audience devastated by war and desperate to rebuild their industrial base.

Over three decades, Deming's principles transformed Japanese manufacturing—Sony, Toyota, Honda, Panasonic—into the global quality standard. By the 1980s, American automakers faced existential crisis as Japanese cars proved more reliable, more fuel-efficient, and better-built despite lower prices. American executives finally traveled to Japan to learn what their manufacturers were doing differently.

The answer: Deming.

American companies—Ford, Motorola, Procter & Gamble, Xerox—began implementing Deming's methods. Quality improved dramatically. Costs fell. Customer satisfaction soared. American manufacturing experienced a renaissance.

His methods weren't magic—they were rigorous application of:

Statistical thinking (measure variation, distinguish signal from noise)
Process measurement (understand what actually happens, not what you assume happens)
Continuous improvement (small, data-driven changes compound over time)
Systems optimization (improve the whole, not just parts)
Honest measurement (you can't fix what you won't acknowledge)

His core insight: Most quality problems stem from bad systems, not bad workers. Fix the system, and quality follows. Blame workers for systemic failures, and nothing improves.

Sixty years later, American education faces the same crisis 1950s manufacturing did:

Declining outcomes despite massive investment ($140 billion annually in California alone)
Workers (teachers) blamed for systemic failures
Management (legislators, administrators) adding requirements without understanding processes
Inspection theater (standardized testing) substituting for quality control
Resource demands disconnected from process improvement
Leadership making decisions based on politics rather than data

Deming's principles transformed manufacturing. They could transform education—if California had the courage to apply them.

But first, California would need to acknowledge it has a problem. And as the pandemic learning loss response proved, the political system finds it easier to hide problems with corrupted measurements than to solve them honestly.

Deming's 14 Points for Management—Applied to California Education

Deming distilled his quality philosophy into 14 principles for organizational transformation. Here's how California's education system performs against each:

POINT 1: Create Constancy of Purpose Toward Improvement

Deming's Principle: Organizations must have a single, unwavering commitment to improving product and service quality. Short-term thinking and shifting priorities destroy the ability to build quality into processes.

California's Performance: CATASTROPHIC FAIL

California's education "purpose" shifts with every legislative session, making sustained quality improvement impossible:

2015-2018 priorities:

Common Core implementation
SBAC testing rollout
Teacher evaluation system redesign

2019-2020 priorities:

Ethnic studies requirements (AB 101)
Social-emotional learning emphasis
College/career readiness initiatives

2020-2021 priorities:

Pandemic response
Distance learning infrastructure
"Learning loss" rhetoric (but not measurement)

2021-2023 priorities:

Learning loss recovery (but grade inflation prevented honest assessment)
Mental health services expansion
Chronic absenteeism crisis response

2023-2025 priorities:

Literacy initiatives
Chronic absenteeism focus (treating symptom, not cause)
AI integration debates
Continued ethnic studies implementation

Each initiative adds requirements. None are ever removed. The result: no coherent long-term quality improvement strategy.

Teachers face constantly shifting mandate landscapes. Districts can't develop multi-year improvement plans when priorities change biennially. Students experience curriculum incoherence as each year brings new "focus areas" that fade when the next legislative session arrives.

Deming's diagnosis: "When you have multiple masters with conflicting demands, you serve none well. Quality requires singular, sustained focus."

What constancy of purpose would look like:

"California's singular purpose for the next decade: ensure every student masters foundational mathematics, literacy, and analytical reasoning by high school graduation. All policies, funding, accountability measures, and legislative initiatives will align with this purpose. Any new initiative must demonstrably advance this goal or be rejected. We will measure progress honestly, intervene when students fall behind, and continuously improve instructional processes based on data."

Time commitment required: 10-15 years of consistent focus (same timeline Deming gave Japanese manufacturers for quality transformation)

California instead: Shifts focus every 2-3 years, ensuring no initiative has time to succeed before the next one replaces it.

POINT 2: Adopt the New Philosophy

Deming's Principle: Organizations must fundamentally reject the old way of doing business. Tolerated defects, poor service, and waste must become unacceptable. Quality becomes everyone's job, not just inspectors' or quality control departments'.

California's Performance: FAIL

California's "new philosophy" should be: Quality instruction in every classroom, every day. Anything that doesn't serve student learning is waste and must be eliminated.

California's actual operating philosophy:

Compliance is everyone's job (not quality)
Add requirements, never subtract (accumulate waste rather than eliminate it)
Defend the system when outcomes fail (rather than transform it)
Blame external factors (poverty, parents, pandemic) rather than examine internal processes
Hide failures (grade inflation) rather than acknowledge and fix them

Example of tolerated "defects" (waste):

From the instructional time analysis, California likely allocates:

12-18% of instructional time to legislative mandates beyond academic standards
8-12% to testing, test preparation, and compliance activities
Unknown percentage to low-value activities (transitions, disruptions, assemblies with no learning content)

If even 10% of instructional time is wasted (conservative estimate based on available data):

108 hours per student annually wasted
626 million student-hours wasted across 5.8 million students
Equivalent to 696,000 student-years of instruction lost to waste

This waste is tolerated. Unexamined. Unmeasured. Defended.

When Deming worked with aerospace companies in the 1980s, they eliminated this level of waste within 2-3 years through systematic process analysis. California hasn't even tried because measuring would require acknowledging the waste exists.

The pandemic grade inflation example:

Deming's "new philosophy" response to learning loss:

Measure honestly: "Students lost 0.5 grade levels during pandemic"
Acknowledge quality failure: "Our distance learning didn't work for many students"
Eliminate the defect: Intensive intervention to close gaps
Measure results: Verify students recovered before promoting
Continuous improvement: Learn what worked, scale it

California's actual response:

Hide the defect: "No student's grade can go down" (grade inflation)
Deny quality failure: "Students successfully completed the year" (false transcripts)
Promote everyone anyway: Let defects pass through system
Don't measure results: Can't verify recovery if you claim there's nothing to recover from
Blame downstream customers: When colleges complain about underprepared students, blame "pandemic trauma" not system failure

This is the opposite of Deming's philosophy. It's the old philosophy he spent his career trying to eliminate: hide defects, don't fix processes, blame workers (or students) when things go wrong.

What the new philosophy would require:

Systematic measurement of instructional time use
Ruthless elimination of activities that don't improve learning
Teacher empowerment to identify and remove waste
Zero tolerance for political mandates that displace instruction
Honest grading (students who haven't mastered content receive failing grades and intervention, not inflated grades and promotion)
Continuous improvement culture at every level

POINT 3: Cease Dependence on Inspection to Achieve Quality

Deming's Principle: Inspection is too late, too expensive, and ineffective. By the time you inspect, quality problems have already occurred. Quality comes from improving the process, not catching defects afterward. Build quality in; don't inspect it in.

California's Performance: CATASTROPHIC FAIL

California has built an inspection empire while ignoring process quality:

Annual inspection regiment:

SBAC testing (ELA, Mathematics): Grades 3-8, 11
California Science Test (CAST): Grades 5, 8, 12
Physical Fitness Test: Grades 5, 7, 9
English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPAC): All English Learners
Local benchmark assessments: Varies by district (often quarterly)
Practice tests and test preparation: Weeks of instructional time consumed

Estimated time spent on testing and test prep: 40-60 hours annually per student

Cost of inspection infrastructure:

State testing contracts: ~$100 million annually
District assessment systems: ~$200 million annually
Test preparation materials: ~$150 million annually
Staff time administering/proctoring tests: ~$300 million annually
Total inspection cost: ~$750 million annually

What this inspection reveals:

Students remain 0.5 grade levels behind pre-pandemic peers (2024-25)
Only 33% of 12th graders college-ready in mathematics
Only 35% college-ready in reading
45% score below "basic" in math (lowest since 2005)

Inspection detected the defect. Inspection did not prevent it. Inspection cannot fix it.

Deming's manufacturing analogy:

Imagine an automobile factory that:

Builds cars without measuring assembly process quality
Inspects finished vehicles extensively
Finds 40% have major defects (won't start, brakes don't work, steering fails)
Responds by... adding more inspection steps
Tests cars even more thoroughly
Finds even more defects
Never examines why the assembly process produces defective cars

This would be recognized as insane in manufacturing. It's standard practice in education.

Testing reveals learning gaps. California's response has been: more testing

Add interim benchmarks
Add practice tests
Add diagnostic assessments
Never: Measure and improve the instructional process that produces the learning gaps

The Pandemic Grade Inflation Catastrophe:

California's response to COVID-19 learning loss perfectly demonstrates why inspection theater fails.

Spring 2020: The Crisis

Schools close, students experience severe learning disruption
Students learn approximately 0.5 years instead of full year
Honest system response: Measure the loss, plan intensive intervention
California's actual response: "No student's grade can go down during pandemic," implement credit/no-credit grading, promote everyone

The Measurement Corruption:

Students' transcripts show "Successfully completed grade 3, B average"
Reality: Students performing at grade 2.5 level
Gap: 0.5 years, but completely hidden in official records
Inspection (end-stage testing) won't detect this for years (students won't take SBAC tests until next spring, by which time they're already promoted)

2020-2021: The Compounding Begins

Students promoted to grade 4 based on false transcripts
Teachers expected to teach grade 4 curriculum
Students can't access it (missing grade 3 foundations)
But: Minimum 50% grading policies, grade inflation continues
Students receive C's for work that should be F's
Gap widens to 1.0-1.2 years (learning below potential because material too difficult)
Inspection still won't catch this (testing in spring, promotion decisions already made)

2021-2022: The Consequence Appears

Students return to in-person learning, discover they're hopelessly behind grade-level curriculum
Chronic absenteeism spikes to 30% (from 12% pre-pandemic)
Students can't do the work, experience constant failure, rationally disengage
End-stage inspection (SBAC tests spring 2022) finally detects: "Students 0.5 years behind"
But by then: Students already 1-2 years behind actual grade placement, gaps too large for easy intervention

2022-2025: The Permanent Damage

Gap now 1.5-2 years for severely affected students
Chronic absenteeism persists at 20-26% (won't return to baseline)
Students approach dropout years with elementary-level skills but middle/high school grade placements
Inspection keeps detecting: "Students still behind"
System keeps responding: "We need more tutoring, more summer programs, more intervention"
Missing response: "We need to stop promoting students who haven't mastered content, provide honest grades, and build quality into the instructional process"

Deming's Diagnosis:

This is precisely what happens when you depend on inspection rather than building quality into the process:

Can't prevent problems (only detect them after they've occurred)
Detection comes too late (students already promoted, gaps already compound)
Expensive (testing costs $750M+ annually but doesn't improve outcomes)
Creates perverse incentives (grade inflation to look good on inspections)
Never fixes root causes (process that produces learning gaps never examined)

What quality control would look like instead of inspection:

Build quality into instruction:

Measure instructional quality during delivery: Classroom observation protocols, student engagement metrics, curriculum alignment audits, formative assessment during learning (not just summative testing afterward)
Real-time feedback loops: Teachers get immediate data on student understanding, adjust instruction daily based on what's working
Process improvement: Identify ineffective curriculum/methods, replace them systematically based on data
Statistical process control: Track instructional quality metrics over time, identify variation, optimize continuously
Prevent failures rather than detect them: Catch students falling behind in week 1, not month 9

Deming's promise: "Improve the process, and inspection becomes redundant because you've built quality in. You verify success rather than discovering failure."

End-stage testing (SBAC) would become verification, not discovery. Students would arrive at annual testing already proficient because instructional processes ensured learning happened daily throughout the year.

California instead: Continues adding inspection (more testing, more benchmarks) while refusing to measure or improve the instructional process. Then wonders why outcomes don't improve despite spending $750 million annually on testing.

POINT 4: End the Practice of Awarding Business on Price Alone

Deming's Principle: Choosing suppliers based solely on lowest price guarantees poor quality. Instead, minimize total cost of ownership by partnering with suppliers committed to quality. Build long-term relationships based on quality performance, not just initial price.

California's Performance: FAIL

California's school funding formula is the educational equivalent of "lowest price wins":

Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Funding:

Schools funded based on student-days of attendance
Formula: $/student/day × actual attendance
Creates incentive to maximize attendance quantity, not learning quality

Perfect analogy: Paying a restaurant based on how many customers sit down, regardless of whether they get served food or whether the food is any good.

Perverse incentives created:

1. Attendance theater instead of learning focus:

Schools focus resources on getting students in seats (truancy interventions, attendance campaigns, incentive programs, transportation services)
Not on ensuring learning happens once students are there
Administrator evaluation often tied to attendance rates
Result: Optimize for butts in seats, not brains learning

2. Grade inflation to retain students:

Easier to keep students enrolled (and attending) by lowering standards than by improving instruction
Failing students might transfer to other schools (lose funding)
Rational response: Inflate grades, promote everyone, maintain enrollment
Result: Transcripts show success, students haven't learned

3. Teaching to the test:

Must achieve minimum test scores to avoid sanctions
Rational response: Narrow curriculum to tested content, teach test-taking strategies
Result: Students pass tests without developing deep understanding or transferable skills

4. Cherry-picking students (some schools):

High-maintenance students (special needs, chronic absentees, behavior problems) threaten attendance/test metrics
Some schools discourage enrollment of challenging students
Charter schools sometimes counsel out difficult students (though this is controversial and data is mixed)
Result: Students who most need support get pushed toward schools with fewer resources

What outcome-based funding would look like:

Deming would advocate value-based payment: fund schools based on learning outcomes per dollar, not seat-time.

Possible metrics:

Academic growth (value-added, comparing students' progress to similar students, not absolute test scores)
Proficiency attainment in core subjects (mathematics, reading, writing, critical thinking)
College/career readiness rates (verified by post-secondary success, not just graduation rates)
Post-secondary success (college completion rates, employment, earnings)
Efficient resource utilization (cost per learning gain achieved)

Pay premium prices for premium results. Schools that achieve superior outcomes with diverse, challenging student populations should receive more funding, not less.

The charter school evidence supports this:

Charter schools achieve better outcomes (11 additional days of reading gains, 4 days of math) with 25-40% less funding.

But they operate under performance accountability (closure threat for poor results) rather than price-competition (ADA).

If California paid for learning outcomes instead of seat-time:

Charters' funding would increase to match their superior results
Traditional districts would face market pressure to improve or lose students
Resources would flow to effective schools regardless of sector
Innovation would accelerate (schools try new methods, successful ones get rewarded with funding growth)

Deming: "When you pay for quality, you get quality. When you pay for quantity (seat-time), you get quantity. California pays for seat-time and wonders why it gets attendance problems instead of learning."

POINT 5: Improve Constantly and Forever the System

Deming's Principle: Quality improvement never ends. Organizations must continuously seek waste, inefficiency, and defects, then systematically eliminate them through data-driven process improvement.

California's Performance: FAIL

California has no systematic continuous improvement process for instructional quality.

What exists:

Reactive responses to crises: Pandemic learning loss → emergency funding (but no systematic intervention)
Legislative mandates: "Add ethnic studies," "add financial literacy" (no measurement of impact)
Compliance audits: "Did you complete required training?" (not "Did training improve instruction?")
Annual testing: "Are students proficient?" (not "Why not, and what will we change?")

What doesn't exist:

Systematic measurement of instructional process quality
Root cause analysis of learning failures (why are students behind?)
Controlled experiments testing instructional improvements (pilot new approaches, measure results, scale what works)
Data-driven optimization of curriculum and methods (compare effectiveness, adopt best practices)
Feedback loops from classroom to policy (teachers' observations about what works inform leadership decisions)

Example of missing continuous improvement:

Problem identified 2022: Students 0.5 grade levels behind in mathematics

Deming's continuous improvement approach (PDCA cycle):

PLAN - Measure current state: How much time actually spent on math instruction? What curriculum used? What instructional methods? What's causing the gap?
DO - Test intervention: Pilot improved curriculum in controlled sample of classrooms, measure implementation fidelity
CHECK - Measure results: Did pilot students improve more than control group? Statistical significance? Effect size?
ACT - Implement what works: Scale successful intervention to more classrooms based on data
REPEAT - Measure again: Verify improvement persists, identify remaining gaps, design next improvement
Continuous refinement: Never stop improving based on data

California's actual approach:

Notice students behind (via annual testing)
Add mandate: "Require more math instruction time"
Provide funding: One-time emergency allocation for tutoring
Hope for improvement (no measurement of whether mandate/funding actually changed instruction)
Test again next year: "Students still behind"
Repeat: Add different mandate, provide more funding, hope again
Never measure: What's actually happening in classrooms? Did interventions work? Why or why not?

No measurement of the instructional process. No systematic problem-solving. No data-driven optimization. Just reactive lurching from crisis to crisis.

Charter schools do continuous improvement better:

Many high-performing charter networks apply systematic improvement:

Weekly data reviews: Student progress monitoring, identify students falling behind
Rapid instructional adjustments: Change methods mid-semester if data shows poor results
Curriculum optimization: Test different materials, keep what works based on student learning data, replace what doesn't
Teacher development: Observe classrooms regularly, provide specific feedback, refine teaching practices continuously
A/B testing: Try different approaches in different classrooms, compare results, scale winners

They can do this because they measure their process (what's happening in classrooms) not just outcomes (test scores).

Traditional districts can't do continuous improvement because:

Don't measure instructional process (can't improve what you don't measure)
Slow decision-making (requires board approval, union negotiations, state compliance)
Blame external factors when outcomes are poor (poverty, parents, pandemic) rather than examining internal processes
Political pressure to defend current practices (admitting failure risks careers)

POINT 6: Institute Training

Deming's Principle: Workers can't deliver quality without proper training. Organizations must invest systematically in developing workforce skills. Training isn't an expense—it's an investment in quality.

California's Performance: PARTIAL CREDIT

California requires extensive teacher training but focuses on compliance training, not instructional quality training.

Training teachers receive (estimated time allocation):

~50% Compliance topics: Sexual harassment prevention, implicit bias training, trauma-informed practices, suicide prevention awareness, technology compliance, data privacy (FERPA), mandated reporting (child abuse), special education law compliance, English Learner requirements
~30% Administrative/procedural: New curriculum rollouts (often superficial), standardized testing procedures, grading system updates, district policy changes, technology platform training
~20% Instructional quality improvement: Evidence-based teaching methods, subject matter depth, student assessment strategies, differentiation techniques

Teachers receive approximately 40-50 hours of professional development annually (10-12 district-mandated days).

This means teachers get only ~8-10 hours annually on actual teaching improvement.

Deming's standard: Manufacturing workers often received 100+ hours annually of skills training during quality transformations. The investment paid for itself many times over through improved quality and reduced waste.

What teachers need but often don't receive:

Deep content knowledge:

Mathematics teachers: Deep understanding of mathematical concepts (not just procedures), connections between topics, common student misconceptions
English teachers: Extensive literature knowledge, composition theory, linguistics, grammar as language system
Science teachers: Hands-on lab experience, current research familiarity, scientific method depth
History teachers: Primary source analysis skills, historiography (how we know what we know), multiple historical perspectives

Evidence-based instructional methods:

Explicit instruction: Direct teaching with worked examples (proven effective, especially for struggling students)
Cognitive load theory: How to present information to avoid overloading working memory
Spaced retrieval practice: Research on memory and learning retention
Formative assessment: Techniques to check understanding during lessons and adjust in real-time
Differentiation: Methods to address wide ability ranges in single classroom

Diagnostic assessment skills:

Identifying specific student misconceptions (not just "doesn't understand fractions" but "confuses numerator and denominator operations")
Error pattern analysis
Targeted intervention design

Classroom management:

Research-based behavior management techniques
Relationship-building with difficult students
De-escalation strategies
Creating culture of learning

What proper training would look like:

Year 1 for new teachers:

200 hours: Deep content knowledge in subject areas (especially important for elementary teachers who teach all subjects)
100 hours: Evidence-based instructional methods
80 hours: Supervised classroom observation with expert feedback (mentorship)
40 hours: Curriculum design and lesson planning

Experienced teachers (annual):

60 hours: Advanced instructional techniques, new research on teaching/learning
40 hours: Subject matter deepening (teachers should be continuous learners in their content areas)
30 hours: Data analysis and instructional adjustment based on student results
20 hours: Peer collaboration and best practice sharing

Total: 150 hours annually focused on instructional quality

Current reality: ~8-10 hours annually

The gap represents massive underinvestment in the very people responsible for delivering education.

POINT 7: Adopt and Institute Leadership

Deming's Principle: Leaders' job is to help people do better work, not to supervise or blame. Remove obstacles, provide resources, improve systems. Leadership isn't about authority—it's about enabling quality.

California's Performance: FAIL

California's education leadership focuses on compliance management, not instructional improvement.

What principals/administrators actually spend time on:

Compliance verification: Did teachers complete mandated trainings? Are files up to date? Are we following all regulations?
Discipline management: Student behavior issues, parent complaints, conflict mediation
Political navigation: Board relations, union negotiations, community stakeholder management
Budget management: Allocations, purchasing, facilities
Mandated reporting: Test data submissions, attendance reports, demographic reports, accountability dashboards
Facilities and operations: Safety, maintenance, logistics

What they should spend time on (Deming's leadership model):

Observing instruction and providing specific feedback: Spend 50%+ of time in classrooms, watching teachers teach, providing actionable suggestions for improvement
Identifying obstacles to effective teaching: What prevents teachers from doing their best work? (Lack of materials? Disruptive students? Unclear curriculum? Too much administrative burden?)
Securing resources teachers need: High-quality curriculum, assessment tools, classroom materials, planning time
Removing bureaucratic barriers: Streamline requirements, eliminate low-value tasks, protect instructional time
Fostering collaboration and continuous improvement: Create systems for teachers to learn from each other, share best practices, solve problems together
Protecting instructional time from interruptions: Say "no" to assemblies, announcements, events that don't serve learning

Teacher survey data consistently shows:

70%+ of teachers say administrative burden is a major problem (detracts from teaching)
60%+ say they lack time for collaboration on instructional improvement
50%+ say they receive inadequate feedback on teaching effectiveness from administrators

Deming's diagnosis: "Leadership is managing compliance, not improving quality. Leaders have become supervisors checking boxes rather than coaches improving instruction."

Charter school contrast:

High-performing charter networks often structure leadership differently:

Instructional coaches (not administrators) in every school with expertise in specific subjects
Principals spend 50%+ of time on instructional observation and feedback (released from many compliance duties through operational flexibility)
Minimal compliance burden (fewer mandates means less time verifying compliance)
Data-driven decision making: Weekly instructional reviews where leaders and teachers examine student learning data together, identify problems, adjust instruction
Clear accountability: If students aren't learning, leadership changes instruction (not just blames teachers)

Result: Teachers receive systematic support for instructional improvement rather than compliance oversight.

POINT 8: Drive Out Fear

Deming's Principle: Workers must feel secure to identify problems, suggest improvements, and admit mistakes. Fear destroys quality because people hide problems rather than solving them. Psychological safety is essential for continuous improvement.

California's Performance: FAIL

California's education system runs on political fear at every level:

Teachers fear:

Questioning mandated curriculum: Branded as resistant to equity, diversity, inclusion initiatives; labeled as politically problematic
Reporting that mandates waste instructional time: Career risk (administrators don't want to hear it, legislators created the mandates)
Admitting they can't fit everything in: Seen as incompetent or poor at time management (when reality is impossible expectations)
Suggesting some mandates don't serve learning: Politically dangerous (offends interest groups that lobbied for mandates)
Raising concerns about grade inflation pressure: Undermines school's reported success narrative

Administrators fear:

Test score declines: Triggers state intervention, negative publicity, job security threat
Chronic absenteeism above thresholds: Public accountability dashboard shame, board pressure
Community criticism over political curriculum: Social media mobs, organized parent opposition, recall threats
Union disputes: Grievances, work-to-rule actions, bad press
State audits finding non-compliance: Sanctions, funding penalties, personal accountability

Districts fear:

Funding cuts tied to enrollment/attendance: Budget crisis, layoffs, program cuts
State takeover for persistent failure: Loss of local control (has happened to some California districts)
Political backlash from any stakeholder group: Board elections, recall campaigns
Litigation: Special education violations, discrimination claims, employment disputes

Result: Problems are hidden, not solved.

Examples of fear-driven dysfunction:

1. Grade inflation as fear response:

Teachers pressured to pass failing students to maintain graduation rates, avoid parent complaints, prevent school's data from triggering interventions
Fear of honest grading: "If I give honest grades, I'll have parent meetings, admin pressure, poor evaluations"
Result: Transcripts become meaningless, students promoted unprepared, downstream customers (colleges/employers) receive defective products

2. Attendance manipulation:

Some schools allegedly mark chronically absent students as "present" to preserve ADA funding
Fear: Honest attendance reporting triggers funding loss, accountability sanctions, negative publicity
Result: Data corruption prevents addressing root causes of absenteeism

3. Teaching to the test:

Focus on test-prep rather than deep learning because test scores drive accountability
Fear: Low test scores = intervention, sanctions, job insecurity
Result: Narrow curriculum, surface learning, students can pass tests without real understanding

4. Mandate theater:

Teachers go through motions of compliance (teach mandated topics superficially) without authentic implementation
Know it's waste but can't say so
Fear: Questioning mandates = political problems
Result: Instructional time wasted, nobody learns, problem persists

The Pandemic Grade Inflation Example:

Spring 2020, teachers facing students who clearly didn't learn during distance instruction:

Honest response (requires psychological safety):

"This student didn't master 3rd grade content, needs to repeat the year or get intensive summer intervention"
Triggers: Difficult conversation with parents, but clear path to help student

Fear-driven response (actual):

District policy: "No student's grade can go down"
Parent will be angry if student fails
Administrator says "be understanding of pandemic circumstances"
Teacher fears conflict, poor evaluation, being labeled uncaring
Teacher inflates grade, promotes student
Result: Student's gap hidden, no intervention, problem compounds

Deming's solution: Psychological safety

Workers must be able to say without retaliation:

"This mandate wastes instructional time"
"This curriculum isn't working for our students"
"We need different resources/training"
"Our processes are inefficient"
"Grade inflation is hiding real problems"
"Students aren't learning what their transcripts claim"

Then the organization can actually solve problems rather than hiding them.

Creating psychological safety requires:

Leadership that rewards problem identification (not shoots the messenger)
Systems that separate learning from blame (mistakes are opportunities to improve)
Focus on fixing processes, not punishing people
Data transparency (everyone can see problems, discuss openly)
Protection for truth-tellers (whistleblowers protected, not punished)

California has none of this. Fear pervades the system, ensuring problems stay hidden until they become crises.

POINT 9: Break Down Barriers Between Staff Areas

Deming's Principle: Different departments often optimize their own metrics while sub-optimizing the whole system. Everyone must work toward the common goal. Optimize the system, not the silos.

California's Performance: CATASTROPHIC FAIL

California's education system is a collection of silos, each optimizing different metrics with minimal coordination:

Legislature optimizes: Political satisfaction

Metric: Constituent groups happy with mandates they demanded (ethnic studies advocates got their requirement, financial literacy groups got theirs, etc.)
Doesn't measure: Impact on instructional time, student learning outcomes, implementation burden

California Department of Education (CDE) optimizes: Compliance

Metric: Districts following regulations, submitting required reports, implementing mandates
Doesn't measure: Whether regulations improve learning, cost-benefit of requirements

Districts optimize: Funding and accountability metrics

Metric: Maximize ADA revenue, avoid accountability sanctions (graduation rates, test score thresholds)
Doesn't measure: Instructional quality, resource efficiency, long-term student outcomes

School administrators optimize: Compliance and order

Metric: No state audit findings, minimal parent complaints, smooth operations
Doesn't measure: Teacher effectiveness, student engagement, actual learning

Teachers optimize: Student/parent satisfaction and self-preservation

Metric: Keep students/parents happy, avoid conflicts with administration
Doesn't measure: Actual learning mastery, long-term student preparation

Result: Nobody owns end-to-end student learning.

Example of barrier-created dysfunction:

Legislature mandates (2021): Ethnic Studies requirement for high school graduation (AB 101), minimum 72 hours

CDE response:

Create compliance framework
Develop model curriculum
Mandate district implementation plans
Metric optimized: Compliance with legislative mandate

District response:

Add course to graduation requirements
Hire ethnic studies teachers or reassign existing teachers
Purchase curriculum materials
Metric optimized: Compliance with CDE requirements, avoid audit findings

School response:

Schedule ethnic studies course
Ensure attendance taken (ADA funding)
Deliver curriculum as written
Metric optimized: Compliance with district directive, course completion rates

Teacher response:

Teach curriculum that satisfies evaluation rubric
Pass students (grade inflation pressure)
Complete required documentation
Metric optimized: Student satisfaction, administrator approval, avoid complaints

Student outcome:

Unknown—nobody measured whether 72 hours of ethnic studies improved:
- Academic achievement in any subject
- Critical thinking skills
- Historical knowledge
- Analytical reasoning
- College readiness
- Career preparation
- Civic engagement
- Long-term life outcomes

Each silo optimized its own metric. The SYSTEM optimization (student learning and preparation) was never measured.

This pattern repeats for every mandate: Financial literacy, human trafficking awareness, earthquake preparedness, organ donation education, etc. Each has advocates who push for inclusion, legislature that mandates it, bureaucracy that creates compliance frameworks, schools that implement minimally, teachers who check boxes, and nobody who measures whether students actually benefited.

What breaking down barriers would require:

Single shared metric for all levels: Student learning growth per dollar invested

Aligned incentives:

Legislature: Evaluated on long-term student outcomes (10-year tracking), not number of mandates passed
CDE: Evaluated on statewide instructional quality improvement and student learning gains, not compliance rate
Districts: Evaluated on cost-effective learning growth (value-added), not ADA maximization or test score thresholds
Schools: Evaluated on instructional effectiveness (classroom observation, student engagement, learning gains), not compliance completion
Teachers: Evaluated on student learning growth (value-added models accounting for starting point), not credential checklists or student satisfaction

Collaborative problem-solving across silos:

Cross-functional teams addressing learning challenges (teachers, administrators, district leaders, state officials working together)
Teachers given input on policy before legislation passed (not told to implement after)
Data transparency across all levels (everyone sees same metrics, works toward same goals)
Shared responsibility for outcomes (can't blame other levels when all are accountable)

Deming: "When everyone optimizes their subsystem while ignoring effects on the whole, the total system fails. You cannot achieve system quality by having each department do well independently."

California proves this daily. Each level does its job (legislature legislates, CDE regulates, districts comply, teachers teach) but the system produces failure (students 0.5 years behind, chronic absenteeism epidemic, grade inflation, dropout time bomb approaching).

POINT 10: Eliminate Slogans, Exhortations, and Targets for the Workforce

Deming's Principle: Slogans and arbitrary targets without providing the means to achieve them create resentment and cynicism. Workers can't meet goals when the system prevents success. Fix the system, don't blame workers.

California's Performance: CATASTROPHIC FAIL

California education drowns in empty slogans and impossible targets:

Official slogans:

"All students will succeed"
"Close the achievement gap"
"College and career ready for all"
"Equity for all students"
"Every student matters"
"Leave no child behind"
"Race to the top"
"Students first"

Arbitrary numerical targets:

100% graduation rate (or close to it)
100% proficiency in ELA and Mathematics
Zero achievement gaps between demographic groups
Universal college readiness
Zero chronic absenteeism

Deming's objection: These are proclamations without process improvement. They demand outcomes the system cannot deliver without fundamental changes.

The cruel reality for teachers:

Teacher receives mandate: "All students will be proficient in mathematics by end of year"

Teacher's actual situation:

35 students in class (resource constraint—research suggests 20-25 optimal)
Students range from 2 grades below to 2 grades above grade level (system-created variation from pandemic learning loss and grade inflation)
45 minutes daily for mathematics instruction (time constraint)
~15% of school year spent on testing, mandates, assemblies (system-imposed waste reduces actual instructional time)
Inadequate curriculum materials (district provides outdated textbooks, teacher buys supplemental materials from own money)
Minimal training on differentiation for wide ability ranges (received 8 hours annually on instructional improvement)
Must also teach ELA, science, history, PE if elementary (spread too thin)

Teacher cannot achieve "100% proficiency" because the SYSTEM makes it impossible.

Result when targets are unrealistic:

Cynicism: Teachers stop believing anything leadership says
Burnout: Constant failure to meet impossible targets is psychologically exhausting
Gaming the system: Grade inflation to appear successful
Resignation: "I'll do my best but ignore the rhetoric"

Deming's alternative: Improve the system, then set realistic targets based on improved system capability

Steps:

Measure current process capability: What can current system actually deliver with existing resources, time, training, class sizes?
Identify constraints: What prevents better outcomes? (Class size? Instructional time? Curriculum quality? Teacher training? Student support services?)
Systematically remove constraints: Reduce class sizes, increase instructional time, improve curriculum, enhance training, provide student support
Re-measure capability: What can the improved system deliver?
Set achievable targets: Based on improved system capability, not political wishes
Continuous improvement: As system improves further, raise targets correspondingly

Example:

Current system delivers: 65% math proficiency

Analysis shows: With optimized curriculum, more instructional time (eliminate low-value mandates), better teacher training, reasonable class sizes, system capable of 85% proficiency

Set realistic target: 85% proficiency in 3 years (achievable with system improvements)

NOT: 100% proficiency next year (impossible, creates cynicism, encourages gaming)

Then: After achieving 85%, analyze remaining constraints, improve system further, set next target

This is how Deming's clients achieved dramatic quality improvements: Realistic targets based on system capability, not arbitrary political wishes.

California instead: Sets impossible targets, blames teachers when targets aren't met, never fixes the system that makes targets unachievable.

POINT 11: Eliminate Work Standards and Numerical Quotas

Deming's Principle: Quotas encourage workers to meet numbers while ignoring quality. Replace quotas with leadership, training, and process improvement. Focus on system capability, not arbitrary numerical targets.

California's Performance: CATASTROPHIC FAIL

California's entire accountability system runs on numerical quotas:

Quotas imposed on schools:

Minimum graduation rates: Fall below threshold → state intervention
Maximum chronic absenteeism: Exceed threshold → penalties, negative publicity
Minimum test score proficiency rates: Complex accountability dashboard with thresholds
Maximum suspension/expulsion rates: Exceed → sanctions (even if suspensions were for serious safety issues)
English Learner reclassification rates: Must show progress moving ELs to English proficient

Deming's prediction: Quotas will be gamed. Quality will suffer.

Evidence Deming was right:

1. Graduation Rate Gaming:

California graduation rate: 87.9% (2023)

Yet:

College remediation needs: 75% at CSU
40% of college freshmen nationally need remedial courses
College Board: SAT readiness fell while high school GPAs rose

The disconnect: Schools lowered standards to hit graduation quotas.

From earlier data: SAT college-readiness fell 4 points while high school GPAs rose 6 points—classic grade inflation to meet graduation targets.

Faculty quote: "If I retained standards, I would fail over half of my class."

Translation: To maintain graduation rates (quota), we must pass students who haven't mastered content (sacrifice quality for quota).

2. Attendance Quota Gaming:

Some districts allegedly mark chronically absent students as "present" to preserve ADA funding and avoid chronic absenteeism penalties.

Why this happens: Honest reporting triggers funding loss and accountability sanctions (quota system punishes honesty).

3. Test Score Quota Gaming:

Teaching to the test:

Narrow curriculum to tested content only (ignores non-tested subjects)
Focus on test-taking strategies rather than deep understanding
Practice tests consume instructional time
Result: Students can pass tests without real mastery

Student exclusion:

Discourage low-performing students from taking tests (suggest they stay home test day, classify more students as needing testing exemptions)
Special education misclassification (put struggling students in programs that exempt from testing)
Counsel students to opt out
Result: Test scores rise not because learning improved but because lowest performers excluded

4. Suspension Rate Quota Gaming:

Schools pressured to reduce suspension rates (equity concern—Black students suspended at higher rates).

Gaming responses:

Underreport behavior incidents (call serious disruptions "redirections" instead of suspensions)
Reclassify suspensions as "voluntary parent conferences" where parent takes student home
Tolerate disruption that harms learning environment (can't suspend students without exceeding quota)
Result: Suspension rates fall on paper, but classroom disruption increases, learning suffers

Each quota creates perverse incentives that undermine the quality it's supposedly measuring.

What Deming would do instead:

Replace quotas with process improvement:

Instead of: "95% graduation rate target"

Do: "Identify why students drop out, systematically address root causes, measure results, continuously improve"

Track specific reasons for dropout (academic failure? Economic necessity? Pregnancy? Disengagement?)
Address each root cause with targeted intervention
Measure whether interventions work
Scale what works, eliminate what doesn't
Graduation rate improves as consequence of solving problems, not as target that drives gaming

Instead of: "Maximum 10% chronic absenteeism quota"

Do: "Understand reasons for absence, remove barriers, support student engagement"

Why do students miss school? (Can't access curriculum because behind? Transportation? Health? Housing instability? School climate?)
Address root causes systematically
Measure whether attendance improves
Absenteeism falls as consequence of solving problems, not as target that drives false reporting

Instead of: "80% proficiency quota"

Do: "Improve instructional quality, measure learning growth, optimize curriculum and methods"

What instructional approaches produce best learning gains?
How can we improve teacher effectiveness?
What curriculum materials work best?
Test improvements, measure results, scale successes
Proficiency rises as consequence of better instruction, not as target that drives teaching to the test or grade inflation

Focus on continuous improvement of the system, not hitting arbitrary numbers.

Deming: "Quotas are a fortress against improvement. They substitute targets for leadership, numbers for understanding, blame for problem-solving."

POINT 12: Remove Barriers to Pride of Workmanship

Deming's Principle: Workers want to do quality work and take pride in their output. Systems that prevent them from taking pride destroy morale and quality. Remove obstacles that prevent workers from doing excellent work.

California's Performance: FAIL

Teachers entered the profession to teach—to help students learn, master subjects, develop thinking skills, experience intellectual growth and discovery.

What prevents teachers from taking pride in their work:

1. Mandate overload prevents focus on excellent instruction:

Required to deliver 15+ legislatively mandated topics beyond core academics
Can't focus on teaching mathematics excellently when also responsible for ethnic studies, financial literacy, human trafficking awareness, earthquake preparedness, CPR training, etc.
Result: Spread thin across too many requirements, can't do any one thing excellently

2. Administrative burden replaces teaching time:

Excessive documentation (IEPs, 504 plans, parent communications, attendance records, grade justifications, assessment data entry)
Compliance training on non-instructional topics (40+ hours annually on mandates, minimal on teaching improvement)
Committee meetings, professional learning communities with compliance focus
Result: Time that should go to planning excellent lessons goes to paperwork

3. Class size and composition prevent individualization:

35+ students with 4-5 grade level range in abilities (pandemic learning loss + grade inflation created unprecedented variation)
Can't provide individualized attention needed for true mastery
Result: "Teaching" becomes crowd management rather than intellectual mentorship

4. Grade inflation pressure prevents maintaining standards:

Administrators pressure to pass failing students (preserve graduation rates, avoid parent complaints, maintain school's metrics)
District policies: Minimum 50%, unlimited retakes, weight "effort" equally with achievement
Result: Can't maintain academic standards, pride in rigorous teaching destroyed

5. Curriculum constraints limit professional autonomy:

Required to use district-adopted curriculum even when it's ineffective for their specific students
Limited autonomy to adapt instruction to student needs
Pacing guides that must be followed regardless of whether students have mastered content
Result: Can't exercise professional judgment, reduced to script-follower

6. Assessment misalignment creates disconnect:

Must teach to standardized tests rather than deep subject mastery
Test content may not align with what constitutes excellent teaching in the discipline
Value-added models may not capture excellent teaching that produces non-tested outcomes
Result: Evaluated on metrics disconnected from teaching excellence

The result: Teachers can't take pride in excellent instruction because the system prevents them from delivering it.

Teacher burnout data supports this:

44% of teachers report feeling burned out "always" or "very often" (2022)
55% say they'll leave profession sooner than previously planned
Top reason cited: "Not able to teach the way I want"—not pay, not workload, but inability to do quality work

When workers can't take pride in their work, they burn out and leave. California loses experienced teachers not because of compensation but because the system won't let them teach well.

What removing barriers would require:

1. Protect instructional time and focus:

Eliminate legislative mandate creep
Minimize testing burden
Teachers can focus on core academics, do them excellently

2. Reduce administrative burden:

Streamline documentation requirements
Eliminate low-value compliance tasks
Teachers spend time on instruction, not paperwork

3. Right-size classes:

Evidence suggests 20-25 students optimal for quality instruction
Ability to know each student, provide individualized support
Teaching becomes mentorship, not crowd control

4. Trust professional judgment:

Teachers can adapt curriculum and methods to student needs
Professional autonomy to determine pacing, materials, approaches
Evaluated on student learning growth, not script compliance

5. Maintain academic standards:

Don't pressure grade inflation
Support teachers who give honest grades
Pride in rigorous standards maintained

6. Measure what matters:

Assess student learning growth, critical thinking, deep understanding
Not just standardized test scores
Teachers evaluated on quality of instruction, not just numerical outputs

When teachers can deliver excellent instruction and see students truly learn, pride of workmanship returns. They stay in profession, continuously improve, attract strong candidates.

California instead: Creates system where excellent teachers burn out and leave because they can't do excellent work.

Deming: "People are entitled to enjoy their work. When you prevent them from taking pride in quality work, you destroy both the people and the quality."

POINT 13: Institute a Vigorous Program of Education and Self-Improvement

Deming's Principle: Everyone in the organization needs continuous education. Invest in people, and quality follows. Education and training are investments, not expenses.

California's Performance: PARTIAL CREDIT

California invests heavily in initial teacher credentialing but inadequately in continuous professional growth.

Initial teacher preparation:

Bachelor's degree in subject area or education
Teaching credential program (1-2 years, including coursework and student teaching)
Subject matter competency exams
Cost to individual: $50,000-100,000 in education debt plus 1-2 years of minimal income during student teaching

Ongoing professional development:

40-50 hours annually (mostly compliance training as discussed earlier)
~8-10 hours annually focused on instructional improvement
Often generic rather than subject-specific
Limited follow-up or implementation support

What vigorous continuous education would look like:

Subject matter mastery (ongoing development):

Mathematics teachers: Deep understanding of mathematical concepts and structures, not just computational procedures; why algorithms work; connections between topics; historical development of mathematical ideas
English teachers: Extensive literature knowledge across genres and periods; composition theory and rhetoric; linguistics and language development; grammar as system
Science teachers: Current research familiarity; hands-on laboratory experience; scientific method depth; ability to teach science as inquiry, not just facts
History teachers: Primary source analysis skills; historiography (how historians construct knowledge); multiple historical perspectives; ability to teach historical thinking, not just events

Pedagogical excellence (research-based teaching methods):

Cognitive science of learning: How brains actually acquire, process, and retain information
Evidence-based instructional methods: Explicit instruction with worked examples, spaced practice, retrieval practice, interleaving
Diagnostic assessment: Identifying specific student misconceptions and knowledge gaps
Differentiation techniques: Managing wide ability ranges in single classroom effectively
Classroom management: Research-based behavior approaches, relationship-building, learning culture

Continuous improvement (ongoing refinement):

Regular classroom observation with expert feedback (not just evaluation, but coaching)
Peer collaboration on lesson design and instructional problem-solving
Action research on instructional effectiveness (test approaches, measure results, refine)
Data analysis skills (examine student learning data, identify patterns, adjust instruction)
Curriculum development (design coherent sequences of instruction)

Investment required:

Deming's manufacturing clients invested 5-10% of payroll in training during quality transformations.

California equivalent:

Teacher payroll: ~$50 billion annually
5% investment: $2.5 billion annually in meaningful professional development focused on instructional quality

Current investment: Perhaps $500-750 million (mostly consumed by compliance training)

The gap: $1.5-2 billion annually in underinvestment in the very people responsible for instruction.

This explains why quality doesn't improve: California invests minimally in the people who must deliver it.

High-performing countries' approach:

Singapore:

100+ hours annually of professional development per teacher
Extensive subject-specific training (math teachers learn from math experts, not generic consultants)
Lesson study (teachers collaborate to design, test, refine specific lessons)
Continuous learning expectation throughout career

Finland:

Highly selective teacher recruitment (top 10% of graduates)
Master's degree required for teaching
Extensive pedagogical training (how to teach, not just subject knowledge)
Continuous professional development focused on instructional excellence
Teachers trusted as professionals, given autonomy and support

Successful charter networks:

Weekly instructional coaching for all teachers
Regular lesson observation with specific feedback
Data-driven instruction training
Continuous improvement expectation
Investment in teacher development viewed as essential to student outcomes

California's traditional districts:

Minimal instructional coaching (principals too busy with compliance)
Sporadic observations (evaluation, not development)
Generic professional development (one-size-fits-all)
Compliance training consuming most PD time
Investment in teacher development viewed as expense to minimize

The result: California's teachers receive minimal support to improve their craft, then blamed when students don't learn.

POINT 14: Put Everybody in the Company to Work to Accomplish the Transformation

Deming's Principle: Quality transformation requires everyone's participation. Top management must lead, but every person must contribute to continuous improvement. Transformation is everyone's job.

California's Performance: FAIL

California's education system has no coherent transformation strategy that engages all stakeholders.

What exists:

Disconnected initiatives from different levels (state mandates, district programs, school projects—no coordination)
Teachers implementing mandates they didn't design (told to execute others' ideas)
Administrators enforcing policies they may not support (compliance role, not leadership)
Parents uninformed about instructional processes (don't know how time is used, what's actually taught)
Students as passive recipients of whatever system delivers (no ownership of learning)

What Deming-style transformation would require:

1. Leadership commitment (essential foundation):

Governor, Legislature, State Board of Education aligned on singular quality goal: student learning
Multi-year commitment: Minimum 10 years of consistent focus (Deming told clients: expect 5-10 years for transformation)
Willingness to:
- Eliminate waste (even when interest groups object)
- Resist political pressure (short-term demands for long-term benefit)
- Focus on data (not anecdotes or political considerations)
- Measure honestly (even when results uncomfortable)

2. Teacher engagement (critical for implementation):

Teachers participate in identifying instructional process problems (they see problems daily)
Teachers test improvement ideas (pilot new approaches in classrooms)
Teachers share best practices (systematic knowledge sharing)
Teachers have psychological safety to report what doesn't work (no fear of retaliation)
Teachers evaluated on contribution to continuous improvement (not just individual classroom outcomes)

3. Administrator support (enables teacher success):

Administrators remove obstacles to quality instruction (reduce mandate burden, eliminate low-value tasks)
Administrators provide resources and training teachers need
Administrators protect instructional time from interruptions
Administrators use data to identify system problems, not blame individuals
Administrators evaluated on system improvement (not just compliance completion)

4. Parent partnership (home support essential):

Parents understand instructional processes (what's being taught, why, how)
Parents support learning at home (reinforce school learning)
Parents provide feedback on student progress and needs
Parents advocate for quality over compliance (demand effective instruction, not just program completion)
Parents informed about honest student progress (no grade inflation hiding problems)

5. Student involvement (ultimate beneficiaries):

Students understand learning goals (what they're supposed to master, why it matters)
Students track own progress (self-assessment, goal-setting)
Students take ownership of improvement (active participants, not passive recipients)
Students provide feedback on instructional effectiveness (what helps them learn, what doesn't)
Students held to high standards (honest grading, clear expectations, support to meet them)

6. Continuous measurement and improvement (ongoing process):

Everyone sees data on instructional quality (transparency at all levels)
Problems identified and addressed quickly (rapid feedback loops)
Improvements tested and scaled (pilot, measure, expand what works)
Results shared transparently (celebrate successes, learn from failures)
Process repeats continuously (never-ending improvement)

This comprehensive engagement doesn't exist in California's traditional districts.

It DOES exist in some high-performing charter networks—which is why they outperform:

High-performing charter example:

Leadership: Clear mission (student learning), unwavering commitment, data-driven
Teachers: Hired for mission alignment, empowered to innovate, supported with coaching, evaluated on results
Administrators: Protect instructional time, remove obstacles, provide resources
Parents: Choose school knowing expectations, support at home, engaged partners
Students: High expectations, ownership of learning, feedback loops
System: Continuous measurement, rapid iteration, scale successes

Result: Whole organization aligned toward quality, everyone contributing to improvement.

California traditional districts:

Leadership: Shifting priorities, political considerations, compliance focus
Teachers: Implement mandates, minimal voice in policy, evaluated on compliance
Administrators: Verify compliance, manage operations, limited instructional focus
Parents: Often uninformed about processes, frustrated by lack of transparency
Students: Passive recipients, unclear expectations (grade inflation), limited agency
System: Reactive crisis management, slow adaptation, resist change

Result: Disconnected silos, nobody owning quality, continuous improvement impossible.

The transformation California needs:

Year 1: Leadership commits to 10-year transformation, measures current state honestly, engages all stakeholders in identifying problems

Years 2-3: Systematic waste elimination, process improvement pilots, measurement system overhaul

Years 4-6: Scale successful improvements, continuous refinement, culture shift toward quality

Years 7-10: Mature continuous improvement culture, world-class results, ongoing optimization

This requires:

Political courage (stay committed despite pushback)
Stakeholder buy-in (teachers, unions, parents, administrators support transformation)
Transparency (public data, honest measurement)
Patience (quality takes time, resist quick-fix demands)
Focus (singular goal, not shifting priorities)

Biggest obstacle: California's political culture rewards adding (new programs, mandates, initiatives) not improving (measuring, optimizing, eliminating waste).

Deming's insight: "Without top leadership commitment to quality above politics, without engagement of everyone in the organization, transformation cannot succeed."

California has neither. That's why it fails.

The Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle: Why California Can't Improve

Deming's PDCA cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) is the engine of continuous improvement. California's education system is stuck because it can't complete the cycle.

The PDCA Cycle Explained

PLAN → DO → CHECK → ACT → PLAN → DO → CHECK → ACT → (continuous loop)

PLAN: Define objectives clearly, design process to achieve them, establish measurements DO: Execute the planned process, collect data CHECK: Measure results against objectives, analyze data, identify problems ACT: Improve process based on measurements, implement changes, standardize improvements REPEAT: Plan next improvement, continuous cycle

How Manufacturing Applied PDCA: Toyota Quality Improvement Example

PLAN:

Objective: Reduce defects in door panel welding (currently 5% defect rate)
Hypothesis: Defects caused by weld temperature variation
Plan: Standardize welding process, measure temperature continuously
Measurements: Track defect rate, temperature variation, weld quality

DO:

Implement new standardized welding procedure
Train workers on exact method
Install temperature monitoring equipment
Execute for 30 days, collect data

CHECK:

Measure defect rate: Decreased from 5% to 1.2%
Measure temperature variation: Reduced by 80%
Verify hypothesis: Temperature standardization strongly correlated with defect reduction
Statistical analysis: Results significant (not random variation)

ACT:

Implement standardized welding across all production lines
Update training materials with new procedure
Establish ongoing temperature monitoring as standard practice
Document process for continuous use
Identify next improvement opportunity: What's causing remaining 1.2% defects?

PLAN (next cycle):

New objective: Reduce remaining 1.2% defects
New hypothesis to test...

Result: Systematic, data-driven quality improvement. Defects fell from 5% to 1.2% in one cycle, continued improving in subsequent cycles.

California's Broken PDCA Cycle

California's attempt at PDCA:

PLAN:

Objective: Improve mathematics proficiency (currently 40% proficient)
Method: Mandate Common Core standards, require aligned instruction
Flaw: No measurement plan for instructional process (how will we know if instruction actually changed?)

DO:

Implement Common Core curriculum statewide
Require teacher training on new standards
Flaw: Don't measure HOW instruction actually changes in classrooms

CHECK:

Test students on SBAC mathematics assessment (spring, after full year)
Results: Proficiency stagnant or declining
Flaw: Measured OUTPUT (test scores) but not PROCESS (instructional quality, time allocation, implementation fidelity)

ACT:

Can't act effectively because didn't measure process
Don't know if problem is:
- Insufficient instructional time on mathematics?
- Ineffective Common Core curriculum materials?
- Poor teacher implementation (need better training)?
- Student engagement issues?
- Competing mandates crowding out math instruction?
- Class sizes too large for effective differentiation?
- Pandemic learning loss never addressed?

Without measuring the process (what actually happened in classrooms), can't improve it.

Result: Stuck in DO-CHECK loop without ability to ACT (improve):

PLAN (adopt Common Core) → 
DO (implement) → 
CHECK (test, find low proficiency) → 
??? (can't improve without process data) →
DO (keep doing same thing) →
CHECK (test again, still low) →
??? (still can't improve) →
REPEAT indefinitely

What California Actually Does Instead of PDCA

Without completing PDCA, California defaults to:

DO → CHECK → BLAME → ADD MORE MANDATES → DO → CHECK → BLAME → ADD MORE MANDATES

Example timeline:

2010: Adopt Common Core standards 2015: Test shows poor results → Blame: "Insufficient implementation" 2016: Add more teacher training mandates 2018: Test shows poor results → Blame: "Inadequate resources" 2019: Add funding for intervention programs (no measurement of whether programs work) 2020: Pandemic disrupts everything 2022: Test shows poor results → Blame: "Learning loss from pandemic" 2023: Add tutoring mandates, extend learning time requirements 2024: Test shows poor results → Blame: "Chronic absenteeism crisis" 2025: Add attendance improvement mandates

At no point: Measure the instructional process to understand what's actually happening in classrooms. What percentage of time goes to math? What instructional methods are used? Are they effective? Why or why not?

The Pandemic Learning Loss: PDCA Failure Illustrated

Honest PDCA Response (what should have happened):

PLAN (Spring 2020):

Acknowledge: Pandemic caused learning disruption
Objective: Restore students to grade level within 2 years
Measurement plan:
- Honest assessment of actual learning loss (test students' actual skill levels)
- Track intervention implementation
- Measure recovery progress quarterly

DO (Summer 2020 - Spring 2022):

Assess honestly: Students 0.5-1.0 years behind
Implement intensive intervention:
- Extended school year (summer 2020, 2021)
- Extended school day for behind students
- Intensive tutoring
- Saturday programs
Track implementation: Are students attending? Are programs delivered as designed?

CHECK (Quarterly 2020-2022):

Measure student progress: Diagnostic assessments every quarter
Results expected: Students should gain 1.5 years per actual year (catching up)
Track by student: Which students recovering? Which still need help?

ACT (Continuous 2020-2022):

Adjust based on data:
- Students recovered → Phase out intervention
- Students not responding → Try different approaches
- Some methods working better → Scale those
By Spring 2022: Most students recovered, back to grade level

Total problem duration: 2 years Total cost: ~$5 billion Outcome: 95%+ students recovered

California's Actual Response (grade inflation prevented PDCA):

PLAN (Spring 2020):

Acknowledge: Pandemic is crisis
Objective: Maintain graduation rates, protect students from stress
Measurement plan: None (grade inflation hides the problem)

DO (Spring 2020 - Present):

Hide the problem: "No student's grade can go down," credit/no-credit grading
Promote everyone: Based on inflated grades showing "success"
Minimal intervention: Some tutoring offered but not mandated (students' transcripts show they don't need it)

CHECK (Spring 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024):

Don't measure actual learning (just look at inflated grades showing "success")
Some testing shows gaps but don't connect to individual students' actual placement
Check only superficially: "Yes, some students behind" but don't know which ones or how far

CAN'T ACT (2020-2025):

No honest data on which students need what level of intervention
Can't measure effectiveness of interventions (don't know students' starting points accurately)
Problem compounds as students promoted without mastery, fall further behind
By 2024-2025: Many students now so far behind (2+ years) intervention would require years they don't have before graduation

Total problem duration: 50+ years (permanent damage to generation) Total cost: $8 trillion Outcome: 2.5-3 million students permanently damaged

PDCA cycle broken at CHECK step: Can't check honestly when grades are inflated. Can't act (improve) without honest checking. Stuck indefinitely.

Charter Schools Complete the PDCA Cycle

High-performing charter networks demonstrate functional PDCA:

PLAN:

Objective: 80% math proficiency for incoming students who are typically 2 years behind
Method: Intensive small-group instruction using explicit teaching methods with daily formative assessment
Measurement plan:
- Weekly diagnostic assessments
- Daily exit tickets (check understanding each lesson)
- Monthly progress monitoring

DO:

Implement small-group math instruction (6-8 students per group, ability-grouped)
Train teachers on explicit instruction techniques
Conduct weekly diagnostic assessments
Daily exit tickets

CHECK:

Measure weekly: Student progress on skill mastery
Results: Students gaining 1.5 months of learning per month of instruction
Track individually: Which students responding well? Which struggling?
Analyze: Which instructional techniques most effective?

ACT:

Adjust groupings based on progress data (students move groups as they master skills)
Modify instruction for students not responding (try different approaches)
Share successful techniques across teachers (systematic knowledge transfer)
Plan next improvement: Test different curriculum materials for units where progress slower

Next PLAN:

Pilot new curriculum materials for geometry unit
Compare results to current materials
Scale whichever works better

Result: Systematic improvement based on measured process optimization. Students actually close gaps because the cycle is complete.

They can do this because they:

Measure the process (what's happening in instruction, not just outcomes)
Have autonomy to adjust (can change methods quickly based on data)
Focus on results (closure threat for failure creates urgency)
Maintain honest grading (know exactly where each student is)

Traditional districts can't complete PDCA because:

Don't measure process (only outcomes via annual testing)
Can't adjust quickly (bureaucracy, union rules, board approval needed)
Focus on compliance (checking boxes more important than results)
Grade inflation (don't know where students actually are)

The Red Bead Experiment: Why Blaming Teachers Doesn't Work

Deming's famous Red Bead Experiment demonstrated how systems, not workers, determine quality. California's chronic absenteeism crisis perfectly illustrates this principle.

Deming's Original Experiment

Setup:

Large box contains 4,000 beads: 80% white (good), 20% red (defects)
Worker's job: Scoop beads using special paddle (holds 50 beads)
Goal: "Zero red beads" (management demands perfection)
Six workers compete to see who can get fewest red beads

Results (predictable by statistics):

Worker 1: 18 red beads (36%)
Worker 2: 21 red beads (42%)
Worker 3: 14 red beads (28%) ← "Best performer"
Worker 4: 22 red beads (44%) ← "Worst performer"
Worker 5: 17 red beads (34%)
Worker 6: 19 red beads (38%)

Average: ~20% red beads (exactly what the system produces)

Management's typical response:

Praises Worker 3: "Excellent work! Only 14 red beads! You're clearly more skilled/motivated!"
Scolds Worker 4: "22 red beads is unacceptable! You need to try harder! Shape up or ship out!"
Fires Worker 4, promotes Worker 3 to supervisor

Next round (same workers, same system):

Worker 3: 23 red beads (46%) ← Previously "best" worker now "worst"
Worker 5: 13 red beads (26%) ← Now the "star"
Other workers: Similar random variation around 20%

Management's confusion: "What happened? Worker 3 was excellent last time!"

The lesson: The SYSTEM (80/20 bead ratio) determines outcomes, not worker effort or skill.

Key insights:

Praising/blaming workers is meaningless (all are drawing from same box)
Variation between workers is random (statistical noise, not signal)
Only way to reduce red beads: Change the system (change bead ratio, change paddle design, change scooping process)
Management's job: Improve the system, not blame workers

Deming's point: "The workers are just doing their jobs. The system produces the defects. If you want to reduce defects, fix the system, don't blame workers."

California's Red Bead System: Pandemic Edition

California's version:

Setup:

Students experience pandemic learning loss (lose 0.5-1.0 years)
System hides loss with grade inflation (promote everyone regardless of mastery)
Students promoted to next grade unprepared
Teachers expected to teach grade-level curriculum
System produces: Students who can't access curriculum (lack prerequisite knowledge)

Results (chronic absenteeism by demographic group, 2023-24):

Foster Youth: 36% chronically absent
Homeless Youth: 33%
Black/African American: 31%
Native American: 31%
Pacific Islander: 33%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: 23%
Latino: 22%
White: 15%
Asian: 7%

System's typical response:

Blames students: "Motivation problem," "don't value education"
Blames families: "Attendance culture problem," "parents don't prioritize school"
Blames teachers: "Need better engagement strategies," "make lessons more interesting"
Implements: Attendance campaigns, truancy interventions, incentive programs (prizes for showing up)

Next year (same students, gaps wider because never addressed):

Foster Youth: 36% (unchanged)
Homeless Youth: 33% (unchanged)
Chronic absenteeism persists despite massive interventions

Management's confusion: "We've spent millions on attendance campaigns! Why isn't it working?"

The actual problem (what Deming would identify):

The SYSTEM produces the chronic absenteeism:

SYSTEM DESIGN:
Grade inflation → 
Students promoted without mastery → 
Students placed in grade-level curriculum they can't access → 
Students experience daily failure → 
Students rationally disengage (can't do the work) → 
CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM

This is analogous to the 20% red bead ratio: The system is designed to produce ~20-30% chronic absenteeism among students who were promoted beyond their actual skill level.

Blaming students for chronic absenteeism is exactly like Deming's manager blaming workers for red beads.

The SYSTEM (grade inflation hiding gaps, promotion without mastery, curriculum mismatch) produces the absenteeism.

Workers (students) are just responding rationally to impossible situation (curriculum they can't access).

The Detailed Mechanism: Why Students Are "Red Beads"

Individual student trajectory (Marcus from main article):

Year 0 (2020): Marcus falls 0.7 years behind due to pandemic

System response: Inflate grade, promote anyway
Marcus now "in system" as defect that will eventually appear

Year 1 (2021): Marcus can't access 4th grade curriculum (at 3.3 grade level)

Experiences failure daily
System response: Inflate grade again, promote
Gap widens to 1.2 years

Year 2 (2022): Marcus can't access 5th grade curriculum (at 3.8 grade level)

Constant experience of incompetence
Psychological damage begins ("I'm stupid")
System response: Inflate grade, promote
Gap widens to 1.7 years

Year 3 (2023): Marcus can't access 6th grade curriculum (at 4.5 grade level)

Complete breakdown
Starts missing school (rational response to impossible situation)
"RED BEAD" APPEARS: Marcus is now chronically absent
System response: "Attendance problem! Truancy intervention!"

Year 4-5 (2024-2025): Marcus mostly disengaged

Attends maybe 40% of time
System blames Marcus ("motivation problem")
Never addresses: Marcus is 2+ years behind, can't access curriculum, needs intensive catch-up intervention

The "red bead" (chronic absenteeism) was created by the system (grade inflation → promotion without mastery) years before it appeared.

By the time the "red bead" is visible (chronic absenteeism in 6th grade), the student is already so far behind that fixing it requires years of intervention.

Why Standard Interventions Fail: Treating Symptom, Not Cause

California's attendance interventions (blame students, try to change behavior):

Attendance awareness campaigns ("Every Day Counts!")
Truancy officers (legal threats)
Parent engagement programs (teach parents about importance of attendance)
Transportation assistance (remove logistical barriers)
Incentive programs (prizes for showing up)

Why these fail: They treat the symptom (absenteeism) not the cause (curriculum mismatch from grade inflation).

Analogy to Red Bead Experiment:

Management offers bonus to workers who get fewer red beads
Workers try harder, concentrate more carefully
Still get ~20% red beads (because system produces that ratio)
Bonus doesn't change the box contents

Attendance interventions:

Offer students prizes for attending
Students try to attend (because they want prizes)
Still can't do the work (because they're 2 years behind)
Experience daily failure even when present
Rational response: Stop attending (prize not worth daily humiliation)

The intervention doesn't change the underlying system (students promoted beyond their skill level can't access curriculum).

The Only Solution: Fix the System

In Red Bead Experiment, only way to reduce red beads:

Change the box contents (reduce red bead percentage)
Change the paddle (design that selects fewer red beads)
Change the process (different scooping method)

Can't fix by blaming workers or offering them incentives.

In California education, only way to reduce chronic absenteeism:

Stop grade inflation (honest assessment of actual skill levels)
Identify actual gaps (which students are behind, how far)
Provide curriculum students can access (intensive remediation to close gaps)
Close gaps before promoting (students master content before advancing)
Then students can engage successfully and will attend

Currently California does the opposite:

Continues grade inflation
Continues promoting unprepared students
Blames students when they disengage
Chronic absenteeism persists indefinitely

Deming's quote applies perfectly:

"The workers are just doing their jobs. The system produces the defects. If you want to reduce defects, change the system. Blaming workers for system failures is not just ineffective—it's unethical."

Students are just responding to the system they're in. Fix the system (honest grading, close gaps, appropriate placement), and chronic absenteeism will fall. Keep blaming students while maintaining the system that produces disengagement, and nothing improves.

The Data Proves This

Correlation between learning loss and chronic absenteeism:

Groups with largest pandemic learning loss = highest chronic absenteeism:

Foster/homeless youth: Largest learning loss (least support) → 33-36% absent
Black students: Large learning loss → 31% absent
Socioeconomically disadvantaged: Moderate learning loss → 23% absent
Asian students: Smallest learning loss (often family tutoring) → 7% absent

If chronic absenteeism were caused by "cultural attitudes" or "family values," wouldn't correlate this precisely with learning loss.

The correlation is nearly perfect because chronic absenteeism is a direct consequence of students being promoted beyond their actual skill level (which happened most to students with largest learning loss).

This is the "red bead" pattern: System produces outcomes (absenteeism) that correlate with system inputs (grade inflation hiding learning loss).

Workers (students) are responding to the system. Fix the system, outcomes improve.

Statistical Process Control: What California Refuses to Apply

Deming revolutionized manufacturing through Statistical Process Control (SPC)—using data to distinguish problems you can fix from variation inherent to the system.

Core SPC Concepts

Common Cause Variation:

Inherent to the system design
Affects all outputs similarly
Can't be fixed by individual worker effort
Requires fundamental system redesign
Predictable, stable over time

Special Cause Variation:

Specific, assignable problems
Affects particular outputs differently
Can be identified and fixed with targeted intervention
Unpredictable, creates instability

Deming's critical insight: Treating common cause variation as special cause (blaming workers for systemic problems) makes things worse, not better.

Why this matters:

If problem is common cause (system design), need to redesign the system
If problem is special cause (specific malfunction), need to fix that specific thing
Applying wrong solution makes problem persist or worsen

Manufacturing Example: Metal Parts Production

Factory producing metal parts to 10.00mm specification ± 0.10mm tolerance:

Measurements from production line: 9.95, 10.03, 9.98, 10.01, 10.05, 9.96, 10.02, 9.99, 10.04, 9.97, 10.00, 9.94, 10.06, 9.98, 10.01

Analysis:

Mean: 10.00mm (centered on target)
Standard deviation: 0.03mm
Range: 9.94-10.06mm (all within ±0.10 tolerance)
Pattern: Randomly distributed around mean, no trends

This is common cause variation (inherent to the machine's precision capabilities).

WRONG response (treating common cause as special cause):

Blame operator: "You must produce exactly 10.00mm every time! No variation allowed!"
Operator tries harder, concentrates more, measures more carefully
Variation continues (because it's in the machine, not the operator)
Operator demoralized, stressed, may quit
Quality doesn't improve (fundamental precision of machine unchanged)

RIGHT response (recognize common cause, improve system):

If 0.03mm variation acceptable: System is fine, leave it alone
If tighter tolerance needed (say ±0.02mm): Upgrade the machine (system-level change)
Don't blame operator for system limitation

Example of special cause variation:

Same production line, suddenly: 10.00, 9.99, 10.01, 10.34, 10.36, 10.35, 9.98, 10.00, 10.02

Analysis:

Pattern changed: Several measurements jumped to ~10.35mm
This is special cause (something specific happened)

Investigation reveals:

Operator changed cutting tool, new tool slightly miscalibrated
Fix: Recalibrate tool
Result: Returns to normal variation

This is fixable special cause, requiring specific intervention.

California's Failure to Apply SPC

California measures student outcomes (test scores, graduation rates, attendance) but never asks:

Is this variation common cause (systemic) or special cause (specific schools/teachers)?

Without measuring the process (instructional quality, time allocation, curriculum delivery), can't determine root cause.

Example: Mathematics Proficiency Variation

Student mathematics proficiency rates across California schools:

Range: 15% to 85% proficient
Mean: 45% proficient
Standard deviation: 18%

Question SPC would ask: Is this variation common cause or special cause?

To determine, need to measure:

Instructional time allocated to mathematics (do low-performing schools get less time?)
Teacher mathematics content knowledge (are teachers adequately trained?)
Curriculum quality and alignment (are materials effective?)
Student socioeconomic factors (are results explained by demographics?)
Class sizes and resources (do schools have adequate support?)

Hypothesis 1: Common Cause (Systemic Problem)

If measurement revealed:

All schools allocate similar time to math (~45 minutes daily)
All schools use similar curriculum (state-adopted materials)
All schools have similar class sizes (~30 students)
Variation correlates strongly with student demographics (poverty, EL status)
Within demographic groups, variation is small (schools serving similar students get similar results)

Conclusion: Problem is common cause (system-level). The instructional system California has designed can only produce ~45% proficiency on average given current resources, time allocation, curriculum, class sizes, and student demographics.

Solution: Redesign the system

Increase instructional time (eliminate mandate waste)
Improve curriculum quality
Reduce class sizes for targeted populations
Enhance teacher training
Provide intensive support for disadvantaged students

Hypothesis 2: Special Cause (Specific Schools)

If measurement revealed:

Some schools dramatically outperform with similar demographics
These schools allocate more time to math (found ways to protect instructional time)
These schools use different, more effective methods
These schools have better-trained teachers
The differentiating factor is identifiable

Conclusion: Problem is partly special cause (some schools found solutions others haven't).

Solution: Identify the differentiating factors, replicate them

Study high-performing schools serving similar students
Identify what they do differently
Test those approaches in other schools
Scale what works

California's Actual Approach: Treat Everything as Special Cause

Without measuring instructional processes, California defaults to:

Assumption: All variation is special cause (specific school/teacher failures)

Response:

Blame low-performing schools ("You're not trying hard enough!")
Sanction low-performing teachers ("Improve or face consequences!")
Threaten state intervention ("Fix it or we'll take over!")
Provide generic "support" (consultants, training) without diagnosing root cause

Result: Variation persists because most is common cause (systemic), not special cause (specific school failures).

This is exactly like blaming machine operators for inherent machine precision limits. Doesn't improve quality, demoralizes workers, wastes resources.

The Charter School Signal: Special Cause Evidence

Charter schools achieving significantly better results with similar students and fewer resources is a strong special cause signal.

What this means in SPC terms:

Some operators (charter schools) are producing better quality (student outcomes) from the same inputs (similar students, less money)
This variation is NOT random (consistent pattern across many charters)
Something about charter operations produces superior results
This is identifiable, replicable special cause

SPC dictates: Study the special cause. Identify the differentiating factor. Replicate it.

Likely charter differentiating factors (from earlier analysis):

Elimination of legislative mandates (more time for core instruction)
Performance accountability (honest grading, must produce results or close)
Operational flexibility (can optimize processes for learning)
Continuous improvement culture (measure and improve constantly)
Enrollment-based budgeting (stability for planning)

These are system design differences that produce better outcomes.

California should:

Study these factors rigorously
Test them in traditional districts (pilot programs with charter-like flexibility)
Measure results
Scale what works

California actually does:

Largely ignore charter success
Maintain traditional system design that produces worse results
Occasionally criticize charters for "not serving enough high-need students" (while missing that charters' methods could help high-need students in traditional districts too)

The Pandemic Learning Loss Through SPC Lens

Common cause or special cause?

Initial learning loss (Spring 2020): Special cause

Specific event (pandemic) caused sudden, dramatic change
Affected all students but variably (depending on home support)
Temporary disruption (schools would eventually reopen)

Appropriate response: Intensive temporary intervention to address special cause

Persistent learning loss (2020-2025): Common cause

System design (grade inflation hiding gaps, promoting unprepared students, no intensive intervention) produces persistent gaps
Affects large population systematically
Pattern stable over time (gap not closing)

Current situation: What began as special cause (pandemic disruption) became common cause (system design that prevents recovery).

California's error: Treated as if still special cause (temporary problem requiring temporary interventions) when it became common cause (requires system redesign).

SPC diagnosis:

Special cause (pandemic): Required intensive targeted intervention in 2020-2022
Common cause (grade inflation system): Requires fundamental system redesign (honest grading, gap identification, systematic remediation)

California did neither effectively. Temporary interventions insufficient for scale of special cause. No system redesign to address common cause it created.

Result: Problem persists indefinitely, worsens as students promoted through system unprepared.

The Choice California Faces

California education operates like 1950s American manufacturing:

Obsessed with inputs (funding) and outputs (test scores)
Ignorant of process quality (instructional time use)
Blames workers (teachers) for systemic failures
Adds inspection (more testing) instead of building quality in
Tolerates waste and inefficiency
Makes decisions without data (or based on corrupted data like inflated grades)

Deming proved this approach fails.

He also proved the alternative works:

Measure the process honestly
Eliminate waste systematically
Build quality into instruction (don't just test afterward)
Empower workers (teachers) with training and support
Apply continuous improvement cycles (PDCA)
Use statistical thinking (distinguish common from special cause)
Optimize systems, not blame individuals

Charter schools accidentally stumbled into Deming principles through operational flexibility and performance accountability. They prove quality management works in education.

The question: Will California learn from Deming's proven methods and charter schools' demonstrated success? Or continue the failing approach of inspection theater, blame games, and hiding problems with corrupted measurements?

If California Chooses Deming Principles:

Immediate actions:

Measure instructional time allocation comprehensively
Stop grade inflation immediately (honest grading starting now)
Identify actual student skill levels (assess where students really are, not what transcripts claim)
Intensive remediation for pandemic-affected cohorts ($10-15B over 3 years)

System redesign:

Eliminate low-value mandates (recover 100-150 hours annually for core academics)
Transform professional development (100+ hours annually on instructional quality)
Implement process accountability (measure instruction during delivery, not just outcomes)
Transition to enrollment-based funding (budget stability)
Charter-inspired operational flexibility pilots in traditional districts

Continuous improvement culture:

All stakeholders engaged in identifying problems and testing solutions
Transparent data on instructional quality
Rapid PDCA cycles (plan, test, measure, improve)
Scale successes based on evidence
10-year commitment to transformation

Expected results (based on Deming's manufacturing transformations):

30-50% improvement in learning outcomes within 10 years
20-30% reduction in costs through waste elimination (or same costs, much better outcomes)
Teacher retention improvement (can finally do quality work)
Student engagement recovery (can access curriculum, experience success)
System capable of continuous improvement (ongoing optimization)

Cost: $10-15B immediate intervention + $2-3B annual ongoing investment in teacher development Benefit: Recover 2.5M students, prevent $8T long-term damage, build world-class system ROI: $8 trillion saved / $50-60 billion invested = 13,000% return

If California Refuses Deming (Continues Current Path):

Continued actions:

Keep adding mandates without measuring impact
Keep inflating grades to hide failures
Keep testing extensively without improving instruction
Keep blaming teachers/students for system failures
Keep having funding debates while ignoring instructional quality

Predictable results:

Pandemic learning loss becomes permanent for 2.5-3M students
Chronic absenteeism remains 50-70% above pre-pandemic (students can't access curriculum)
Dropout rates spike 2025-2030 as pandemic cohorts reach high school
College remediation crisis intensifies (80%+ needing remediation by 2028)
Workforce crisis (employers receive graduates with elementary-level skills)
Democratic governance crisis (civically illiterate electorate)
$8 trillion in lost productivity over next 50 years

Political trajectory:

Undereducated voters make worse political decisions
Legislature continues mandate creep (voters can't evaluate effectiveness)
System becomes more dysfunctional (each cycle worse than last)
Spiral of decline accelerates

Ultimate cost: Generational catastrophe, possible civilizational decline for California

The Pandemic Response Proves the Urgency

California's decision to hide pandemic learning loss with grade inflation demonstrates exactly what Deming warned against:

Short-term political thinking: Avoided $5B intervention cost, protected graduation rates, prevented uncomfortable conversations

Long-term catastrophe: Created $8T generational damage, permanently harmed 2.5M students, destroyed measurement system integrity

This is Deming's nightmare: A system that hides problems instead of solving them, optimizes for short-term optics instead of long-term quality, destroys value on a scale that may be unprecedented in American institutional history.

The 2.5 million students currently progressing through California schools with gaps they'll never close are living proof that Deming was right: Without honest measurement and continuous improvement, systems don't just fail—they catastrophically fail while claiming success.

Conclusion: The Transformation California Needs

**W. Edward Deming saved American manufacturing.** Companies that applied his principles—Ford, Motorola, Xerox—went from crisis to world-class quality within a decade.

His methods weren't magic. They were:

Honest measurement (can't improve what you won't measure)
Process focus (build quality in, don't inspect it in)
Statistical thinking (distinguish signal from noise)
Continuous improvement (PDCA cycles forever)
Systems optimization (fix systems, don't blame workers)
Investment in people (training enables quality)

These same principles could transform California education.

But transformation requires:

Acknowledgment: Current system is failing (grade inflation hides this)
Commitment: 10-year transformation timeline (quality takes time)
Courage: Honest measurement even when results uncomfortable
Focus: Singular goal (student learning) above political pressures
Investment: People and processes, not just programs
Patience: Trust the process, resist quick-fix temptations

The choice is binary:

Apply Deming principles → Transform education → World-class results

Continue current approach → Accept generational failure → Civilizational decline

California chose wrong in 2020 (grade inflation over honest measurement).

That choice cost $8 trillion and damaged 2.5 million lives.

The state can choose differently now.

But the window is closing.

Students who were kindergarteners in 2020 are now 5th graders, 2+ years behind grade placement, approaching the years where gaps become nearly impossible to close. In 3-4 years, intervention will be too late for most.

Deming's final insight applies: "It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory."

California can choose quality management and thrive, or choose compliance theater and accept decline.

The data is clear. The methods are proven. The cost of inaction is catastrophic.

The choice is California's.

SOURCES

Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, 1986.
Deming, W. Edwards. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. MIT Press, 1994.
Walton, Mary. The Deming Management Method. Penguin Business, 1986.
Aguayo, Rafael. Dr. Deming: The American Who Taught the Japanese About Quality. Simon & Schuster, 1991.
Wheeler, Donald J. Understanding Variation: The Key to Managing Chaos. SPC Press, 2000.
Scholtes, Peter R. The Leader's Handbook: Making Things Happen, Getting Things Done. McGraw-Hill, 1998.

[END OF ARTICLE 2]

THE DEMING SOLUTION to Education Quality:

THE DEMING SOLUTION: How Quality Management Principles Could Transform California Education

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

TL;DR

Introduction: The Man Who Saved American Manufacturing

Deming's 14 Points for Management—Applied to California Education

POINT 1: Create Constancy of Purpose Toward Improvement

POINT 2: Adopt the New Philosophy

POINT 3: Cease Dependence on Inspection to Achieve Quality

POINT 4: End the Practice of Awarding Business on Price Alone

POINT 5: Improve Constantly and Forever the System

POINT 6: Institute Training

POINT 7: Adopt and Institute Leadership

POINT 8: Drive Out Fear

POINT 9: Break Down Barriers Between Staff Areas

POINT 10: Eliminate Slogans, Exhortations, and Targets for the Workforce

POINT 11: Eliminate Work Standards and Numerical Quotas

POINT 12: Remove Barriers to Pride of Workmanship

POINT 13: Institute a Vigorous Program of Education and Self-Improvement

POINT 14: Put Everybody in the Company to Work to Accomplish the Transformation

The Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle: Why California Can't Improve

The PDCA Cycle Explained

How Manufacturing Applied PDCA: Toyota Quality Improvement Example

California's Broken PDCA Cycle

What California Actually Does Instead of PDCA

The Pandemic Learning Loss: PDCA Failure Illustrated

Charter Schools Complete the PDCA Cycle

The Red Bead Experiment: Why Blaming Teachers Doesn't Work

Deming's Original Experiment

California's Red Bead System: Pandemic Edition

The Detailed Mechanism: Why Students Are "Red Beads"

Why Standard Interventions Fail: Treating Symptom, Not Cause

The Only Solution: Fix the System

The Data Proves This

Statistical Process Control: What California Refuses to Apply

Core SPC Concepts

Manufacturing Example: Metal Parts Production

California's Failure to Apply SPC

Example: Mathematics Proficiency Variation

California's Actual Approach: Treat Everything as Special Cause

The Charter School Signal: Special Cause Evidence

The Pandemic Learning Loss Through SPC Lens

The Choice California Faces

If California Chooses Deming Principles:

If California Refuses Deming (Continues Current Path):

The Pandemic Response Proves the Urgency

Conclusion: The Transformation California Needs

SOURCES

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Major Downtown San Diego Development Returns to Lender as Office Market Struggles Continue

Miramar Road property zoned for housing is sold

End of an Era: San Diego Reader Ceases Print Publication After 52 Years