Let’s look at public K-12. The entire community buys the product through taxes and has an expectation of the product. The product is the student graduating with a pre-determined set of skills: reading, writing, arithmetic, but also more elusive skills such as citizenship and responsibility. Think of students like a car that we expect to run, stop and do a pre-determined set of things like defrost the rear window.

When public school began that set of expectations was clear–the three Rs–and because schools were local and paid with local property taxes these service providers were pretty responsive to the needs of its clients (the community). Our world is more complex and global, and communities expect our schools to prepare students for every possibility. Public schools also need to be responsive to, and show respect for, the diversity our modern world demands. So, religions, race, gender and other roles, previously simple, are now making complex demands as well. Thus, the demands of the client/community is in flux and a bit muddled. No service provider can meet such vague and changing demands.

Enter NCLB. In defining outcome with clear standards the public schools are expected to teach towards that target. Each year schools are tested, and those results are released to the community at large. As payment has shifted from local taxes to state and federal, those larger entities now assume more of a client/community role and thus demand satisfaction, or withhold payment.

What does this mean for schools? In short, service providers (aka schools) are required to meet the needs of the client/community. The students are merely product. This means that the needs and wants of the students are immaterial other than what makes them meet the expectations of the community. Learning does not need to be fun, and teachers do not need to be liked other than how that succeeds in creating a better product (students will skills).

One problem with looking at students as cars, though, is that some people automatically turn to being “old school” and harsh. But that does not work for all. Let’s remember that NCLB stands for No Child Left Behind. Graduation rates in the past were horrible compared to today, but our economy allowed for students to drop out and still become productive members of the community. Students also graduated with skills far below the standards because they showed up. Now, our client/community expects all students to not only graduate, but to have the skills expected at each grade level. How to get there?

This is where free and reduced lunch, counseling, sports teams and fun come in. What motivates students? What provides the support and motivation required for students to learn? As each student/product is different, schools need to be flexible, but they also need to get the job done for each student. If they do not–if some children are being left behind–then they need to reexamine what they do and change accordingly.

The community as client is not new, but in examining what motivates students and supports them schools have mistaken students as clients, and not products. Our society used to look at students as the children they are, and do what was best for them as a matter of course. At some point schools began to ask them what they thought, and then catered to them. There is an always-moving but clear line between getting feedback and responding versus thinking they (and their parents) know best. Schools are, at best, partners in providing what the client/community deems worth paying for.

Much of the current frustration in education comes from these confused roles. Not all students respond to the traditional curriculum, yet students are clearly not self reflective nor honest enough to determine their own needs. Schools no longer teach, but facilitate, and the debate of what to do with those not meeting standard is complex and frustrating because what works for that shrinking under served product is hard to determine. Their failure also calls into question to experience of the service providers and the client/community that succeeded with past methods. And, unlike a car, we cannot reject it and sell it for scrap. We also cannot reject delivery of students for being defective, but have to work with what comes in the door; at best we can work with our suppliers through early education and nutrition.

Differentiation and Response to Intervention are two basic strategies that service providers are now using. They are a start. Along with programs like Head Start and free and reduced lunch schools are providing services clients demand. But, notice that every solution to schools has nothing to do with the student at that moment, but instead with what skills they walk in the door with (including attitude, tenacity and other elusive skills) and what teachers do with where they are. In looking at students as the product (the car) business models such as The Toyota Way, Lean Manufacturing and organization skills like Getting Things Done suddenly speak to the educational crisis in our country.

I suggest these models are our next step.

This article seems to be focused on the college level. In that case, the client is even more elusive, but I would argue it is the future student. What goals do they have? In ten years, what do they expect from their investment. A job that pays a certain amount? A career? Or simply to be well rounded? Assume the client is future-student, and present student becomes the product while the school remains the service provider. To this end, a survey of alumni might provide guidance.