Lowering the bar in Florida

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Yes, it is realistic to strive for that. I'm a firm believer that the higher the goals are set, the closer you will come to achieve them. Remember, we are not dealing with an absolute here. "Grade level" is not something that is cast in stone for all time. I'm of the opinion that the grade level can be reached and eventually made more difficult with the right approach. That will never happen if the school is willing to readily accept lesser standards.

What sort of plan would you implement which, if followed, would achieve 100% proficiency?

[3rdnlng]

What sort of plan would you implement which, if followed, would achieve 100% proficiency?

 

Don't know, I'm not a school teacher, but my life experience has taught me that you set your goals high. I didn't say that they would get every child to grade level. I said that doing that should be their goal.

[dayman]

Don't know, I'm not a school teacher, but my life experience has taught me that you set your goals high. I didn't say that they would get every child to grade level. I said that doing that should be their goal.

 

To raise proficiency from 38% to 74% in 6 years does seem like a high goal and apparently the people who do know about education reform feel that way, and think they know how to meet it. Then no doubt in 6 years, they'll have a plan to analyze and see how it worked and didn't work and a higher baseline to start from and they'll set goals even higher etc...this is not rocket science.

[DC Tom]

Don't know, I'm not a school teacher, but my life experience has taught me that you set your goals high. I didn't say that they would get every child to grade level. I said that doing that should be their goal.

 

High, yes. Retardedly high, no. Perfection is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Don't know, I'm not a school teacher, but my life experience has taught me that you set your goals high. I didn't say that they would get every child to grade level. I said that doing that should be their goal.

Goals should be narrowly defined, and achievable with a clearly defined plan with actionable steps and measurable results over a specific period of time.

 

What you've described is an admirable ideal, which I share with you, but it's not a goal.

[3rdnlng]

To raise proficiency from 38% to 74% in 6 years does seem like a high goal and apparently the people who do know about education reform feel that way, and think they know how to meet it. Then no doubt in 6 years, they'll have a plan to analyze and see how it worked and didn't work and a higher baseline to start from and they'll set goals even higher etc...this is not rocket science.

 

Who's saying that reformers are setting the goals? All I know is from personal experience in turn-around situations. I would call my management team together and give them certain guidelines necessary to abide by in order to reach our goals. I would then ask them for their suggestions on how they could reach my stated goal. Next step would be developing a plan that we can all get behind. After that comes the implementation and invariable adjustments to the methods needed to achieve the goal. The goal doesn't change unless it is achieved.

 

High, yes. Retardedly high, no. Perfection is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.

 

Tom, you're better than that. Who's asking for perfection? Read the article again. Is there something wrong with striving to have every child at "grade level" or above?

[DC Tom]

Tom, you're better than that. Who's asking for perfection? Read the article again. Is there something wrong with striving to have every child at "grade level" or above?

 

You are. That's what "100%" means.

[3rdnlng]

You are. That's what "100%" means.

 

So if I set a goal that 100% of students graduating high school would be able to read and write then I would be asking for perfection?

[OCinBuffalo]

What sort of plan would you implement which, if followed, would achieve 100% proficiency?

Don't know, I'm not a school teacher, but my life experience has taught me that you set your goals high. I didn't say that they would get every child to grade level. I said that doing that should be their goal.

Mind if I take a whack?

 

The problem is, once again, a standard that is one-size-fits-all. This time it's one-size-per-race. This is always retarded, every time I've run across it. It never produces the intended results.

 

Let's flip this to make the point: rather than talking about the kids who are in trouble, what about the kids who are advanced? This "proficiency"/one-size standard...means nobody has to do anything for those kids at all. How well are we teaching the kid who knows how to read before they get to kindergarten? With this standard, you will have no idea. Doesn't that kid's parents pay taxes? The child was at 5 when they walked in the door, and if the standard is 3...you get credit for doing nothing.

 

The reverse is also true: if you have a kid who can't focus in class, because they are itching from the bed bug bites that cover their body, they are way behind. We have to worry about getting them from -5 to 0, first, prepared to learn, bite-free. The teacher's job is to get them from 0 to 3, yet the one-size standard means they are accountable for a movement of 8 points.

 

I've struggled for years with both accountants and salespeople, on this. Some clients are at -5 when we get there. Some are at 3. Some are at 4 and have the damn thing deployed and halfway integrated before we show up. You can't set your expectations in terms a homogenous transaction on a balance sheet. If you sold a -5 client, then you, not anyone else, are responsible for why it takes longer, moron. Life rarely works in terms of going to 0 to 3, no matter how much easier it would be for us, and no matter how much we wish it would.

 

There is no "model" or average client, student, or patient that is useful here. You can do averages, and financial allocations, but ask yourself: how often have you drank exactly 2.4 cartons of milk? What does that have to do with you, if you drink 0, or 4, every day? Is that 2.4 a real measurement of you, in any way? If we set the standard as 2.4...what does that have to do with you, or anybody that doesn't regularly drink 2.4 cartons of milk? NOTHING!

 

So what is the answer? First, what is the real problem? Same problem as health care: focusing on the patient = seeking to define performance on a standard...that WILL NEVER BE a standard. We are looking at the student here, and not looking at the work the worker does.

 

This is idiotic. Do we judge the Bills O line play based on the score, or, based on moving their feet, bending their knees, toughness, beating their man, play by play, etc.? We always look at the individual things done, or not done, by individuals, then move on to how the group functions as a unit, then the offense as whole, after looking at other individuals, etc. We focus on the work each worker does, absolutely, and FIRST.

 

When determining worker performance, me MUST focus on the work that the worker does, and whether that is up to standard. What is performance if not the work correctly done/done poorly/not done over time?

 

If the goal is to determine which teachers are performing, and whether, for once and all, we do actually need more/less of them, we need to define what a "good", or just "acceptable" teacher does and how long that generally takes. Then, we must see who is doing that, and who isn't, who is taking shorter time, who is taking longer. Then, we must learn why, and make the necessary corrections. Measure the work again, and see if we've improved.

 

The MBA types here know that work sampling can do this, but I prefer...a never ending sample of work, and ALL of the work. Tends to be a lot more accurate, and helpful.

 

Instead, we have idiots who keep repeating "patient-centered", or in this case "student-centered". Yes, let's create a permanently moving target that can be effected by 1000+ factors, all external to our system and its processes, and then create an arbitrary standard for that moving target, that isn't indicative of anything, because it = 2.4 cartons of milk...and then congratulate ourselves for how much we care about....patients...students...whatever the F. Unmitigated morons.

 

This is not how the job gets done.

[3rdnlng]

Mind if I take a whack?

 

The problem is, once again, a standard that is one-size-fits-all. This time it's one-size-per-race. This is always retarded, every time I've run across it. It never produces the intended results.

 

Let's flip this to make the point: rather than talking about the kids who are in trouble, what about the kids who are advanced? This "proficiency"/one-size standard...means nobody has to do anything for those kids at all. How well are we teaching the kid who knows how to read before they get to kindergarten? With this standard, you will have no idea. Doesn't that kid's parents pay taxes? The child was at 5 when they walked in the door, and if the standard is 3...you get credit for doing nothing.

 

The reverse is also true: if you have a kid who can't focus in class, because they are itching from the bed bug bites that cover their body, they are way behind. We have to worry about getting them from -5 to 0, first, prepared to learn, bite-free. The teacher's job is to get them from 0 to 3, yet the one-size standard means they are accountable for a movement of 8 points.

 

I've struggled for years with both accountants and salespeople, on this. Some clients are at -5 when we get there. Some are at 3. Some are at 4 and have the damn thing deployed and halfway integrated before we show up. You can't set your expectations in terms a homogenous transaction on a balance sheet. If you sold a -5 client, then you, not anyone else, are responsible for why it takes longer, moron. Life rarely works in terms of going to 0 to 3, no matter how much easier it would be for us, and no matter how much we wish it would.

 

There is no "model" or average client, student, or patient that is useful here. You can do averages, and financial allocations, but ask yourself: how often have you drank exactly 2.4 cartons of milk? What does that have to do with you, if you drink 0, or 4, every day? Is that 2.4 a real measurement of you, in any way? If we set the standard as 2.4...what does that have to do with you, or anybody that doesn't regularly drink 2.4 cartons of milk? NOTHING!

 

So what is the answer? First, what is the real problem? Same problem as health care: focusing on the patient = seeking to define performance on a standard...that WILL NEVER BE a standard. We are looking at the student here, and not looking at the work the worker does.

 

This is idiotic. Do we judge the Bills O line play based on the score, or, based on moving their feet, bending their knees, toughness, beating their man, play by play, etc.? We always look at the individual things done, or not done, by individuals, then move on to how the group functions as a unit, then the offense as whole, after looking at other individuals, etc. We focus on the work each worker does, absolutely, and FIRST.

 

When determining worker performance, me MUST focus on the work that the worker does, and whether that is up to standard. What is performance if not the work correctly done/done poorly/not done over time?

 

If the goal is to determine which teachers are performing, and whether, for once and all, we do actually need more/less of them, we need to define what a "good", or just "acceptable" teacher does and how long that generally takes. Then, we must see who is doing that, and who isn't, who is taking shorter time, who is taking longer. Then, we must learn why, and make the necessary corrections. Measure the work again, and see if we've improved.

 

The MBA types here know that work sampling can do this, but I prefer...a never ending sample of work, and ALL of the work. Tends to be a lot more accurate, and helpful.

 

Instead, we have idiots who keep repeating "patient-centered", or in this case "student-centered". Yes, let's create a permanently moving target that can be effected by 1000+ factors, all external to our system and its processes, and then create an arbitrary standard for that moving target, that isn't indicative of anything, because it = 2.4 cartons of milk...and then congratulate ourselves for how much we care about....patients...students...whatever the F. Unmitigated morons.

 

This is not how the job gets done.

 

OC, I grew up in my prior career of manufacturing management in the trenches. After moving up, I was the guy that moved into troubled departments to straighten them out. Sometimes it was a kick them in the ass situation and other times it took a different approach. I've been around enough to know that the prudent thing to do was a little observing before acting. Also, having the hard facts was essential. In court they say you should never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. Well, I didn't have that luxury, but I did realize that I needed to at least know enough that I couldn't be bullschitted. I've had a lot of success turning sow's ears into silk purses. I say this because my goal always became my department's/plant's goal of excellence. Never, never did we set a goal of "mediocre". This is what it sounds like they are doing in Florida in their school system. They're saying that they don't want to be terrible anymore, they want to get to so/so. Well, that's been their unstated goal all along, and where did that get them? It's always a cultural change that is needed, no matter how much the "excuse givers" here want to lay off their bets.

[OCinBuffalo]

OC, I grew up in my prior career of manufacturing management in the trenches. After moving up, I was the guy that moved into troubled departments to straighten them out. Sometimes it was a kick them in the ass situation and other times it took a different approach. I've been around enough to know that the prudent thing to do was a little observing before acting. Also, having the hard facts was essential. In court they say you should never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. Well, I didn't have that luxury, but I did realize that I needed to at least know enough that I couldn't be bullschitted. I've had a lot of success turning sow's ears into silk purses. I say this because my goal always became my department's/plant's goal of excellence. Never, never did we set a goal of "mediocre". This is what it sounds like they are doing in Florida in their school system. They're saying that they don't want to be terrible anymore, they want to get to so/so. Well, that's been their unstated goal all along, and where did that get them? It's always a cultural change that is needed, no matter how much the "excuse givers" here want to lay off their bets.

You sound like a lot of good clients I've worked with.

 

But please understand, as they would:

I am arguing that, even with acknowledging that pre-testing is necessary, and setting a baseline for each kid, thus determining that Mary is a -5, and Billy is a 0, as NY is doing right now, and then measuring the movement upwards from the baseline...it's still wrong. It's less wrong than Florida's "let's see how many we can get to 3, or 2.8 for African-American kids", but it is still WRONG.

 

This is because we have no way of knowing if the work it took to get Mary from -5 to -1 is = to the work it took to get her from -1 to 3.

 

That's because we aren't measuring the work itself. Or, better stated, the scale of work, and the scope of each individual task...is the ONLY measurement that can be consistent, because it is the only thing that can be defined consistently, therefore, it is the only thing that qualifies as a standard.

 

Using Mary, or an average of all the Mary's, and setting a standard of "gets >= this grade on proficiency test" has no chance of providing us what we need in terms of teacher performance.

 

So, while I understand the "prejudice of lowered expectations" argument, and, I also understand the "lowered expectations suck in general, for all races" argument, the idiocy I am describing is an order of magnitude larger.

 

As long as we keep creating non-standards, by basing them on students(um we already have a student performance instrument...it's called grades), which inherently bring a 1000+ external factors for which no teacher can control, and not the work that is being done by the teacher themselves, we have no chance of measuring teacher performance accurately.

 

I am being...."progressive". I am also offering a way out of the endless "we need more money/no you don't" argument, as well as the "we need to grade teachers somehow/your performance measurement system sucks, because I can't control what happens at home" argument.

 

The answer is easy: stop arguing over the wrong F'ing data, measured using the wrong F'ing standards, and, nobody gets to say a word about $ until we know our REAL utilization #s--> our real cost per kid. Until then, none of you will be right, because you are all wrong.

Edited October 16, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[dayman]

Above Post

 

I hear ya, and I'm not here to vouch for some Florida education plan that I know nothing about besides the article in the first post. But to say that it is off no use to measure proficiency through a test and have a goal to increase those scores ... hard to buy it. Problems with tests and how they are designed aside, they are necessary and they do teach us something. When you have a number in the 30s ... it has told you that you likely have massive failures. So in setting a goal to get that number up, it's merely saying we want that problem to get better.

 

I don't think that simply having a goal of getting a score up means that somehow the plan to better the quality of education is now problematic. The plan for getting 30is% to 70% in 6 years.....no doubt includes more than just "we'll just try hard and see what the scores are like in 2018."

 

Once again I don't know any more specifics than we all do, those stated in the first link which don't discuss it. But I think to assume that b/c you look at test scores on a standardized test means that you are ignoring measurements in teaching performance is not correct.

 

I would assume that there are a number of things in their "plan" which would include some way of evaluating teachers better, not just to fire bad ones but to figure out what is good about good ones and share it to make others better. Obviously attract better teachers. Certain systematic changes in the hiring structure (for instance that less tenured teachers are fired first when budgets are cut, clearly the worst teachers should be fired first...while teachers in the country do not get in the business for money there should be dollar incentives to increasing their teaching craft which is not measured by test scores alone, etc).

 

It's easy to say that measuring test scores is the wrong thing to measure and assuming you measure only one thing everybody would probably agree this day in age. But there is nothing in that article that suggests this is the plan.

 

And while race isn't the best nor most PC way of looking at the socioeconomic issues that plague our system...we do need to acknowledge that achievement gaps between students of different backgrounds are real...I forget the stat but something around half of the dropouts in this country are from under 15% of the schools and there is some consistent early education issues there that most think lead to this...it's not being black I know this...and I haven't been defending this race classification scheme...but there does need to be some classification. And acknowledging this doesn't mean you ignore those student who are at the top and how to improve things for them either...

Edited October 16, 2012 by TheNewBills

[OCinBuffalo]

I hear ya, and I'm not here to vouch for some Florida education plan that I know nothing about besides the article in the first post. But to say that it is off no use to measure proficiency through a test and have a goal to increase those scores ... hard to buy it. Problems with tests and how they are designed aside, they are necessary and they do teach us something. When you have a number in the 30s ... it has told you that you likely have massive failures. So in setting a goal to get that number up, it's merely saying we want that problem to get better.

 

I don't think that simply having a goal of getting a score up means that somehow the plan to better the quality of education is now problematic. The plan for getting 30is% to 70% in 6 years.....no doubt includes more than just "we'll just try hard and see what the scores are like in 2018."

 

Once again I don't know any more specifics than we all do, those stated in the first link which don't discuss it. But I think to assume that b/c you look at test scores on a standardized test means that you are ignoring measurements in teaching performance is not correct.

Then you are wrong as well. Look, what you are talking about...is what we call "black boxing". Black boxing means: pick a particular metric, in this case 30% to 70%, set a time frame, 6 months, and then do something different, however specific, and however defined...and then see what comes out the other end. You have an idea of the effect, but you can't know the cause. All you can do is establish a corollary. And that's only if you actually meet the goal.

 

This is the equivalent of trial and error. Even if you can establish that something works, and comes out of the "black box" as expected, there can be 1000 reasons for why it works, therefore, you haven't learned anything.

 

The "black box" in this case, are the specific business processes of the school. Until we understand them, you are, if we go old school , doing a level 0 diagram, or context diagram(depending on which old school ) and merely studying inputs vs. outputs.

 

The fact is, the work itself, or, what is INSIDE the black box...is what is driving the outcome. Measuring the outcome, "30%-70%", is the backasswards way to do this. Measuring the work is measuring the causes. It also has the added benefit of actually being something we can standardize.

 

Democratic/Big Government/one-size-fits-all thinking is to blame here, because show me one kid who is not proficient. Then, show me another. Is what we do to get one to proficient going be =...in terms of teacher time, nurse time, etc(utilization of resources)....to what we have to do to get the other one proficient? Rarely, if ever. If we fail with one, and succeed with the other...it's quite possible we performed better with the one that succeeded, but, it's also quite possible that the opposite is true.

 

The irony here: the teacher's unions, who hate this black box approach, don't realize that treating teachers as a monolithic collective, and measuring by individual student...is the root cause of the problem. They should be talking in terms of the individual...teacher...and not the collective of teachers.

I would assume that there are a number of things in their "plan" which would include some way of evaluating teachers better, not just to fire bad ones but to figure out what is good about good ones and share it to make others better. Obviously attract better teachers. Certain systematic changes in the hiring structure (for instance that less tenured teachers are fired first when budgets are cut, clearly the worst teachers should be fired first...while teachers in the country do not get in the business for money there should be dollar incentives to increasing their teaching craft which is not measured by test scores alone, etc).

Christ, you almost had it in the beginning = establish the tasks, and then define what "good" looks like, but then you went into some goofy HR stuff. HR stuff is what we do...AFTER we've established our business processes, and AFTER we've determined the proper performance standards for them.

It's easy to say that measuring test scores is the wrong thing to measure and assuming you measure only one thing everybody would probably agree this day in age. But there is nothing in that article that suggests this is the plan.

It's easy to say, because it's right to say.

And while race isn't the best nor most PC way of looking at the socioeconomic issues that plague our system...we do need to acknowledge that achievement gaps between students of different backgrounds are real...I forget the stat but something around half of the dropouts in this country are from under 15% of the schools and there is some consistent early education issues there that most think lead to this...it's not being black I know this...and I haven't been defending this race classification scheme...but there does need to be some classification. And acknowledging this doesn't mean you ignore those student who are at the top and how to improve things for them either...

Focusing on the student, the outcome, will always be wrong.

 

Focusing on what we do, identifying each task with necessary granularity, setting a standard for each, and comparing what we do, to those standards, will always be right. Constantly looking for REAL causal effects, and being disciplined enough to demand that we prove these causes beyond question, is how we improve business process.

 

Everything else is just F'ing about.

Edited October 16, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[dayman]

It still comes down to you just saying that if part of what you look at is test scores, then you aren't looking at other metrics. This isn't true. Near where I live, where many of my friends live, there were a lot of articles about the Gates foundation who sort of commandeered a district to experiment with. They look at scores. They also have extensive teacher performance evaluations that go well beyond what the district would be able to do w/ out the money they brought with them. Really at it's core they are studying teaching, giving real feedback to each teacher and understanding what it is that makes the best ones good and finding ways to share those skills with others. B/c part of their program looks at test scores and draws what conclusions they think are appropriate from them...that does not mean that their program somehow ignore the best practices they identify regardless of the test scores coming from that group (which seems to be the focus of their approach).

 

Also anyone who says this is a product of "democratic/big government" thinking and not just a product of the plan Florida adopted doesn't understand state politics in Florida. There is only 1 party. It isn't the Dems and nobody would be caught dead doing anything that smells of big gov't in Tally. Trying to put this on a party or make this partisan is ... quite partisan and quite wrong.

Edited October 16, 2012 by TheNewBills

[OCinBuffalo]

It still comes down to you just saying that if part of what you look at is test scores, then you aren't looking at other metrics. This isn't true. Near where I live, where many of my friends live, there were a lot of articles about the Gates foundation who sort of commandeered a district to experiment with. They look at scores. They also have extensive teacher performance evaluations that go well beyond what the district would be able to do w/ out the money they brought with them. Really at it's core they are studying teaching, giving real feedback to each teacher and understanding what it is that makes the best ones good and finding ways to share those skills with others. B/c part of their program looks at test scores and draws what conclusions they think are appropriate from them...that does not mean that their program somehow ignore the best practices they identify regardless of the test scores coming from that group (which seems to be the focus of their approach).

EDIT: I don't care what else you look at in addition to BPM, if you aren't looking at BPM, you are wrong.

 

Microsoft has never done anything other than set the BPM discipline of management consulting back. Every damn year, every damn product, sucks ass. There's a reason why MS Project has lost all market share. There's a reason why Back Office died. There's a reason why Microsoft Word won, but they can't even beat open source BPM companies who are 1/1000th of their size who nobody knows...except guys like me. Microsoft is good at low-end, "for the masses" software.

 

They suck at doing anything that is requirement specific, or has higher end requirements, because their culture is geared towards "one-size-fits-all". Again, MS Office, good, BizTalk Server? Assclownery. So, it's no surprise that the Gates foundation, using MS...Thinking , would struggle, and do stupid things like look at test scores.

 

Nobody hires Microsoft for BPM, if they are objective, and not a Microsoft-always shop.

 

Doing extensive performance evaluations, if that word means what it usually does, is just doing more worthless, HR stuff. Talking about this skill or that one, or "best practices" defines that HR approach. Feel free to re-explain what you said above, but, based on what you are saying...it's all HR, and mostly worthless, if we haven't done the real BPM work properly.

 

Business Process Management...means what it says. If one can't define business process properly, and do all the other things we do in my job, and wants to dance around the periphery of that, then they have 0 chance of getting anything done. There's a reason why this is a Ph.D discipline, and I get by, because while I don't have one, I've got the years of doing it in the field to, at least, put me on = footing. The reason why I'm asked to speak...by the Ph.Ds? Microsoft does software for administrative assistants. I do software for enterprises, and specifically, CEOs.

Also anyone who says this is a product of "democratic/big government" thinking and not just a product of the plan Florida adopted doesn't understand state politics in Florida. There is only 1 party. It isn't the Dems and nobody would be caught dead doing anything that smells of big gov't in Tally. Trying to put this on a party or make this partisan is ... quite partisan and quite wrong.

One-size-fits-all....is the consistent approach taken by these Big Government programs, every time.

 

Now, who keeps telling us that it's better to Federalize...everything? Who keeps looking to create massive organizations...and walks down the street in all their glory when they do that. But then, years later, when these big organizations create processes and standards that make those massive organizations easier to manage....but are awful for the purposes of actually doing the job the massive organization was created to do....who comes back and tells us "we need more money"?

 

Buddy, if you want to go down this road...I can write 3 dissertations on the not-standards, and retarded instruments, that are used to determine quality, and reimbursement, in Medicare. You want to talk "long posts".

 

I have one acronym for you: MDS 3. Big Government is responsible for that abortion. Democrats are responsible for Big Government. Don't like that one? How about "meaningful use"? Yes, there's nothing quite like using a subjective word...to create a standard.

 

Your results suck. Don't try to duck it, or blame others. They suck because the design that creates them is inherently flawed.

 

I've demonstrated those design flaws, in detail, in these posts. It's up to you whether you want to be objective about it, and deal with what I've put in front of your nose.

Edited October 16, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Gary M]

http://tampa.cbsloca...academic-goals/

 

Not really lowering the bar, more like setting up separate drinking fountains.

[IDBillzFan]

Perfection is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.

 

Every time I hear someone refer to themselves or someone they know as a "perfectionist," I usually respond with "We'd all be perfectionists if we had more time."

[3rdnlng]

Every time I hear someone refer to themselves or someone they know as a "perfectionist," I usually respond with "We'd all be perfectionists if we had more time."

 

 

I'm not so sure how having a goal of getting 100% of the students up to today's concept of "grade level" constitutes "perfection".

[Nanker]

I think every school child should have the personal goal of reading and writing at grade level.

If they can't do that, they've failed themselves.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I think every school child should have the personal goal of reading and writing at grade level.

If they can't do that, they've failed themselves.

That's great and all, but some kids, try as they might, will simply never have the ability.

 

Visualize kids as an array of drinking glasses of various shapes and sizes. Visualize the learning you wish to impart and uniformly standardize as a huge pitcher of water.

 

Lets say that you decide the uniform standard for all the cups is to contain a volume of 8 fl oz. That sounds great until you realise that roughly 25% of the cups are smaller than 8 ounces, and in your efforts to force them accept the full 8 you've wasted a huge amout of water which has overflowed out of the smaller cups and is now all over the !@#$ing floor. So we've already created a huge mess and wasted a ton of our resources, and this is before we examine the cups that were able to hold all 8 fl oz., and realise that a plurality of them can actually hold more than the 8 ounces you've poured into them, some many magnitudes more, and some that can even convert the water you've poured into them into liquid gold. However you've wasted so damn much of the water already that you don't have much more to distribute into the larger cups, and even if you did you don't have the time because you're mandated to solve the "pouring 8 ounces of water into the 6 ounce cup" problem.

Edited October 17, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker