High Quality Outcomes from Networks Between Organizations

These links will clarify with PDF articles found on the web some of the high quality challenges that exist in getting to the truth and integrity of developing solid delivery systems based on First things first.

Certified Not Ready for Direction

Preschool Difference - the Real Kindergarten Requirement

So Many Distractions to High Quality

There are performance reasons to start over and climb the mountain from the other side.

There are very powerful players in this space as we write and speak about restructuring the industry. What we have all over the USA does not work, but it is not because very smart people with solid funding are not vested in it and not working it very hard. They are however, generally working unproven and unsustainable Total Quality Definitions that include look and feel features when basics are brought to the top as most important.

Total Quality is ultimately simplicity in delivering the requirement to the customer who would be willing to pay for it if it were acceptable. I beg you to consider the traditional definition of High Quality. Philip B. Crosby - Quality Without Tears, pages 58-86 and pages 175-200. The definition of quality is conformance to requirements. The system of quality is prevention. The performance standard is zero defects. The measure of quality is the total price / result of non conformance. You can not have traditional high quality without a transaction. High Quality Pre-K defined by the program parameters is not workable in a system of continuous improvement against the education proficiency gap.

When the money is considered important this definition will always rule and will be strong enough to cause the restructuring of everything to get to an affordable cost to stay in business. In our case we have to put pre-k and k-12 in the same box for one set of decisions to make sense of the first things first basics of K-12 public school proficiency. Quality defined by input, feature, look and feel is just not the same as quality defined by the stated real requirements of the paying customer.

The Governor’s statement as he vetoes another silo of spending.

We must do the understandable for the most at risk FIRST before doing the difficult to understand for those not in as much risk.

The States make this complicated. The most at risk bottom half of the bottom half will not be serviced by prescriptive one size fits all definitions of high quality. This kind of help rarely reaches the most at risk because they are not attentive or are overwhelmed.

The hope we have for the most at risk is that the public policies of the states facilitate Pre-k-12 systems to define and support their requirements to improve their GAP performance. Contracts for mentors to deliver the child ready to read, count and understand positive direction (defined simply) so all cultures and at risk families will understand their responsibility to the child, mentor and education systems.

The critical early learning requirements (literacy and order) are informed and set in constraints by the brain sciences to be delivered Pre-k forming a requirement for first things first. This should be for first public and private education dollars. Truth and integrity should not allow any other priority. We are informed and should act on at least the basics for 100% of all children. We could use the sciences to limit the defined basics.

AS A CEO YOU CAN MOVE ONTO THE NEXT PAGE

Our at risk children are not 100% addressed by the voluntary requirements being developed to address QRIS and School Readiness. The gap left in the system becomes a child behind. This missing link to high quality effectiveness shows within 60 days of starting kindergarten.

You can get a glimpse of the confusion from the following links, and it is not neccessary. The providers and any new capacity in this industry wants to meet the requirements and build effective aligned delivery systems. But simplification is needed to build this capacity into the streets where our most at risk children are far and away the majority.

So this next link is a capacity constraint that costs the urban school district, against its goal, as much as $150,000 per child (13x$12,000). When the K-12 requirement is not met - standard capacity constaint accounting - would charge this first part of the process with the whole cost of ineffectiveness because it can not be routinely redone.

As you are reading the next link you will see that the professionals in the provider mix are clearly saying that the indicators are too complex to help deliver the most at risk. There is no reason to align overly complex requirements that are systems can not deliver.

You Must Read Appendix E, The Last 20 Pages of This Report (page51) Properly Describes the Constraint that Must be Managed Against the Goal.

Not Complicated - Already Supported by Curriculum and Materials Digested to Be Delivered One Size Fits One