A Military Story about Standards
In the mid seventies the United States decided to end the draft, which meant that from that date forward no one will be forced to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Previous to this date, all American males were required to register with their local draft board on their 18th birthday. The best-and-brightest, wealthiest Americans and their families rejoiced, for they would no longer be required to fight and die in defense of the United States. Instead, they could turn their full attention to earning degrees at the best and most prestigious schools in the country, and accumulating additional wealth in the high-paying jobs that followed.
Many defense experts believed that our country had made a mistake: They suggested that our nation was about to form a military consisting of 100 percent volunteers. But more importantly, they argued, these volunteers would not include the “cream of the crop” or the “the best-and-the-brightest” Americans. Compounding the challenges our military faced going forward was the fact that is had just lost the War in Viet Nam, its troops were demoralized and poorly trained, and the military was, by all account, one of the worst in the world.
The military immediately studied and implemented the most effective and efficient knowledge and skills training policies each service branch needed in order to be the best in the world. These policies, which set the standards in all areas of training, were rigorously enforced and supported by the entire chain-of commands. This resulted in steady improvement progress, so-much-so that fifteen years later, when the United States Armed Forces deployed to fight Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Storm, this military (without “the-best-and-the-brightest” and the “cream of the crop) ― this military, which now consisted with middle class Americans from rural America, along with guys from Detroit, Harlem, South-Side Chicago, East L.A., Gary, Atlanta . . . was without any doubt the best in the world!
I served as one of the Non-Commissioned Officers in Charge of Training throughout the entire fifteen years span from the end of the draft to Desert Storm. Moreover, I did so before becoming a public school teacher. This is important to note because my experience with standards in the military allows me to compare and contrast my experience with standards in public education.
Implementation or “The Problem with Standards in Public Education”
When it comes to standards, we fall into one of three groups: 1) Those who write the standards; 2) Those who enforce and educate others about the standards; and 3) Those who are affected by the standards. I think that it will be helpful to describe how implementation should work by using the following analogy:
Suppose Expert Motors Car Company, which has been listening to the public demand for a specific type of car, decides to build one. The first step in the process goes to the design engineers. Their task is to construct an actual plan, which meets the requirements standards that the public is demanding. Of course, once the design engineers have completed this step, their design is given to the technicians, whose jobs are to make the engineers’ design into a working model. However ―and this is an important point: Technicians are never able to build a working model based on the original design, because some of the features on the original design are always impractical. It might be that the engineer design calls for the use of the wrong material, or require placement that will cause the car to operate improperly, etc. When the technicians encountered these problems, they simply consulted with the design engineers, and offered them possible alternatives met the standards the public demanded. This communication between the design engineers and the technicians will continue until the prototype of the new car is completed. This is the completion of the second step in the process. Third and final step requires the involvement of the public. After all, they are the ones who are going to buy and drive the new car. It is important to get their input (suggestions and ideas) and to incorporate them into the final design into the prototype that will be going into production.
In this scenario communication and sharing ideas is important. The final product represents the collective work of all three groups, and it accommodates the needs, desires, and concerns of each group. Certainly as time passes unforeseen concerns will be expressed by the groups, but as long as all three groups are willing to communicate and share ideas to address these concerns, new changes will be incorporated and all three groups will continue to enjoy a fairly high level of satisfaction with the car.
Standards in the military worked well because the men and women who write the standards, the men and women who enforce and teach standards, and the men and women who acquire knowledge and skills based on the standards, are always in constant communication with each other. They are always providing each other with feedback, after-action reports, and ideas for improvement.
Standards in education work well in school districts where the State Department of Education, the school districts, and parents are in constant communication ― providing feedback, voicing concerns, and offering ideas. Standards in education work poorly in districts where the opposite is true.
By
James A. Porter
