FIGURE 25-B5 Cause Insufficiency Reservation FIGURE 25-B6 House on Fire Reservation The challenge can be based on the existence of the causality-predicted effect reservation for 10 to 20. In the example in Figure 25-B7, If 10 The packaging line broke down then 20 The AJAX shipment is late is challenged for causality-while the reviewer believes that both 10 and 20 exist, she does not believe that 10 caused 20. She offers as proof that the packaging line broke down after the AJAX order was completed; therefore, the line breaking down did not cause the order to be late.

FIGURE 25-B7 Predicted Effect Reservations

CHAPTER 26.

TOC for Education

". . . To Make the Wish Come True"

Kathy Suerken

Why Change?

"When and why did you decide that these thinking tools would work with children all over the world?" asked the Mexican educator through a Spanish translator at the 2001 Mexican TOC for Education Conference. Mrs. Gonzales and 300 other stakeholders of the Nuevo Leon school system had just witnessed very convincing evidence of the efficacy of the TOC tools to enable students of all ages and skill levels to take responsibility for their own learning and behaviors. Moreover, not only were children and educators applying these problem-solving tools outside the classroom to improve family relationships but also some educators and especially those involved in supportive social services were finding these tools very effective in resolving situations of child abuse and to rehabilitate students in juvenile justice institutions.1 Thus, although Mrs. Gonzalez's question had to be translated for me, the reasons for it did not. Most people are naturally curious about the origins of a program that brings such broad and deep positive change-especially one that works with so many diverse students and adults. The problem of how to differentiate instruction to students with disparate levels of knowledge, experiences, and interests within existing resources is the one dilemma most commonly cited by teachers when asked during TOC for Education (TOCfE) seminars and workshops on five continents.

So what was the compelling evidence that convinced me of the potential global impact of TOC for children? Did I begin to realize the power of TOC as a teaching methodology when I observed the effect of these powerful thinking tools with my own mainstreamed2 middle school students, including those considered to have learning disabilities and other special needs? Was it when I realized other local educators were getting similar results with a variety of age groups and even in interventions with very disruptive students? Or was it when it came to my attention that not only were these students teaching these thinking tools to their peers but even to-and at the request of-their parents?

There is a common denominator for these successes-one that is not dependent on unique teachers or circumstances but rather on a methodology demonstrated in the book The Goal (Goldratt, 1984). Although many consider it to be a business novel about production, as a teacher, I found The Goal to be a book about education-learning to learn, learning to think, learning to lead. I was captivated by the methodology used to enable others to think for themselves, solve their own problems, and take ownership of implementing solutions. While this methodology is not new, what was new to me was the way the scientific method and Socratic questioning techniques were used to motivate others to be more productive and responsible for outcomes in their everyday lives.

After writing the author, Dr. Eli Goldratt, a thank-you letter to explain how I had begun to use this approach to education within my social studies classes and, as well, in managing a volunteer schoolwide international math project, I received, on behalf of my students, a scholarship to a formal training of the TOC thinking processes taught through applications to business and industry. A facilitator training soon followed to enable me to share this knowledge with other local educators.

Later, when teaching 7th grade students a pilot TOC critical thinking class, I shared how grateful I was for this opportunity, along with my concern that I could never repay Dr. Goldratt and the Avraham Y. Goldratt Institute for this expensive, invaluable learning experience. The students suggested an alternative way to express my gratitude . . . a payment in kind. Thirteen-year-old Jesse Hansen converted an idea into a viable solution with words that succinctly and profoundly convey just how much children, like those who teach them, want to make a meaningful difference. "You can use us, Mrs. Suerken. You can use our work." Their work became a full range of powerful examples of the tools and their impact and was shared by these students, along with the work of several local educators, at a 1994 TOC business conference attended by Dr. Goldratt.3 In taking note of how effectively the TOC thinking processes could be translated into practical and highly beneficial outcomes in a classroom and, in keeping with his own lifetime goal, Dr. Goldratt created TOC for Education (TOCfE) in 1995 as a not-for-profit organization to disseminate the TOC logic-based tools and common sense methodologies to all who educate others. Since then, TOCfE has reached more than 200,000 adult education stakeholders with an impact on more than 8 million children in 21 countries.4 Just like the explanation needed to reveal why these tools work with children all over the world, perhaps the most important ingredient in how TOCfE has continued to grow, develop, and continuously improve worldwide is not so much the timeline but the why-line.

In TOC, the whys of creating change that leads to desired and ongoing improvements requires the examination of three questions: What to Change?

What to Change to?

How to Cause the Change?

The purpose of this chapter is to apply these three questions to the education of children and to answer them by using Goldratt's Thinking Processes (TP). This framework will also provide the organization of the chapter, which concludes with a summary.

What to Change?

Many times, we create solutions for problems without first really understanding what causes them. In such cases, we may end up with temporary or partial fixes and the problems resurface. Thus, there is an important distinction between solutions that bring change and solutions that bring improvements. As Eli Goldratt describes this reality, "Although every improvement is a change, not every change is an improvement."5 Most educators can recount a litany of solutions and reform programs that have brought considerable change to schools but not the envisioned improvements needed to prepare all children sufficiently to become productive and responsible adults. Thus, in spite of all best practices and the good intentions and hard work of talented, dedicated educators, many symptoms of an elusive core problem remain, such as: Many students do not know how to connect, interpret, and question information in what they read or hear.

Many students memorize rather than analyze information.

Many students do not know how to solve problems and are dependent on others to do so for them.

Some students do not perceive what they are learning to be relevant to their lives and therefore disengage.

Many students do not know how to apply what they learn.

Many students do not think through consequences before taking actions.

Some students do not know how to control impulsive behaviors that sometimes lead to violence.

Some students leave before graduating.

Maintaining the highest standards for meeting the learning and behavior needs of all students requires more resources (especially time) than are currently available to educators.

These ongoing undesirable effects impact all education stakeholders who look to the education system to prepare youths to be responsible citizens and productive workers in an increasingly competitive, global marketplace. Therefore, with so much at stake, when changes do not lead to desired and expected improvements, there is understandable disappointment and frustration. Unfortunately, these outcomes usually result in explanations written in the language of blame, which are typically directed at those considered being responsible for implementing the chosen solutions, even if they were not part of the process of creating them. If we can-and should-assume that those in education want to be good educators, then it is also reasonable to assume that they are justifiably sensitive to criticism that impugns their abilities, motivation, and especially their purpose.

Educators feel overwhelmed by the expectations of all stakeholders-expectations that can only be met through unrealistic and ineffective amounts of multitasking. They reason that they are being unjustly tasked to fix a myriad of problems that seem be rooted in situations over which they seem to have no control-especially the breakdown of the family and declining social values and morals. Moreover, these factors compound other problems teachers must address with students who arrive to their classrooms with disparate prior learning experiences and skills. Educators contend they do not have sufficient resources-especially time-to do more than teach an already overloaded academic curriculum upon which they are measured and for which they and their school systems are held accountable through standardized testing. Yet many stakeholders-especially those who hope to employ graduating students-also hold educators accountable for preparing students to communicate well, act responsibly, and work well with other people. How do standardized tests measure these attributes?

In other words, if the goal is to educate well, all students need to be prepared for life-to become productive and responsible citizens. In order to achieve that idealistic and worthy objective, educators must try to meet the needs of all stakeholders, especially the learning and behavior needs of all of their students.

On the other hand, educators must also be practical and realistic. Therefore, in order to educate well, they must work effectively within the limitations of existing resources. To do so requires educators to prioritize or set criteria for meeting needs with some likely being sacrificed. Figure 26-1 presents a succinct definition of this core conflict that defines it without finger pointing.

Why is it so difficult to fix this problem in a way that does not compromise either existing resources or ensuring that all students become responsible and productive adults?

Is it because we assume there is no way to teach life skills without sacrificing academic skills or vice versa?

Is it because we assume actions to differentiate instruction to meet the learning needs of all students compromise resources beyond the breaking point?

Is it because we assume students are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for their own learning and behaviors?

Is it possible to challenge and invalidate any of these assumptions? If so, what should be a solution and what should be the outcomes and other criteria to evaluate the solution's effectiveness?

What to Change to?

In the foundation of learning, a building block leads to a quality workforce and the future of a civilized society. That building block is the ability to think and communicate clearly. What if there were a set of concrete thinking and communication tools that could be used to teach prescribed curriculum in such a way that students: FIGURE 26-1 Core conflict. (Source: Kathy Suerken.) Develop their analytical thinking and communication skills at the same time, Apply the methods to problem solving and responsible decision making, Logically connect, interpret, and question information, Attain desired academic standards and benchmarks upon which they are measured, Perceive learning to be relevant, valuable, and transferable between subjects and real life, and Have the motivation and skills needed to feasibly achieve individual and collaborative goals?

Would these desirable effects not only prepare students to be productive and responsible but also enhance educators' existing resources, leaving them with more time for that which they consider most important and rewarding?

Of course, in order to achieve these outcomes and ensure they alleviate pressure on existing resources, the methodology of the tools must be simple, meet diverse student learning needs, and enable the learner to take ownership of solutions-whether they are in a textbook, playground, or a boardroom. If such tools and methodology to teach them actually existed, would educators use them? Let's consider the results of some of those who have.

How to Cause the Change?

TOCfE teaches three TOC thinking and communication tools that have graphic organizers and names: The Cloud, Logic Branch, and Ambitious Target Tree6 as depicted in Fig. 26-2. These generic tools can be taught through applications specific to curriculum delivery, behavior, and school management.

The Cloud

As we know, positive or negative effects in any one of these functions impact all the others. For example, when student behaviors improve, teachers are more able to focus limited resources on teaching and both of these outcomes help school leaders meet the needs and expectations of all school stakeholders. In other words, the whole system improves. A positive effect of successfully addressing the problem of bullying is one such example because the impact is felt not only by those explicitly involved in the bullying but also by all those indirectly affected.

Sometimes bullying manifests itself as name-calling. During recess in a Singapore elementary school, when Joel called Alex names and Alex reacted by using vulgar language and biting Joel on his arm, both nine-year-olds were sent to Vice Principal Wong Siew Shan's office. In a documented presentation (2000) to the 4th TOCfE International Conference7 Wong shared that her traditional response would have been to handle the problem for the children and then file a case sheet in the student's "misbehavior file" for future reference. A few days prior to the incident, however, she had taken TOCfE training sponsored by the National Institute of Education at Nanyang Technological University and was now looking forward to the opportunity of testing the TOC thinking tool, the Cloud, as a way of working through a problem by defining it through wants, needs, and a goal. Figure 26-3 depicts the results.

FIGURE 26-2 TOCfE thinking processes. (Graphics by Rami Goldratt. Source: TOCfE, used with permission.) "It was heartening to note how easily they got the hang of how to use the Cloud template," Wong noted. "After writing that his need was to have fun and, in order to do so, Joel wanted to call Alex names, Joel looked at me sheepishly and said that it wasn't really true."

The TOC tool guides students to see that, many times, their actions that lead to conflict are not based on clear thinking or accurate assumptions.8 The TOC process to explain the underlying reasons or assumptions why we take actions in order to get what we need is very effective to enable students to identify for themselves why sometimes their actions may not be appropriate and for them to create new and more responsible choices.

FIGURE 26-3 Name calling Cloud. (Source: TOCfE, used with permission.) As Wong continues, "On surfacing his assumptions, Joel himself saw that they did not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, he came up with his own solutions and said that another way to meet his need to have fun would be to invite Alex to play with him."

Additionally Wong pointed out that Joel also understood Alex's need to be respected. Acknowledging and legitimizing the other side's need in a conflict not only develops empathy but also a perspective well described by the words of (then) 13-year-old Niceville, Florida, student, Theresa Meyer: "The cloud makes you realize it is the situation that is the problem, not the people."

The negative impact of name calling and bullying becomes exponential on a school campus when there are groups of students bullying other groups of students. As a student assistant coordinator at a large Michigan high school, Doug Roby (1999) used the Cloud to resolve a situation involving seniors who were hazing freshmen or other new students [Fig.26-4]. In his words, "by hazing I mean they were trying to make them do ridiculous, humiliating, or even painful things. I used a Cloud in a group intervention . . . with about 20 senior girls on hazing. Within 30 minutes I explained the concept of the Cloud to the students, had them raise assumptions on one side of the cloud and come up with their own solutions. What a powerful tool to get students to really understand why they are doing something, what effect their actions have on others and to find alternative ways to meet their own needs."9 FIGURE 26-4 Group bullying Cloud. (Source: Doug Roby, used with permission.) In describing a wider range of discipline issues at the school, Roby's (then) Vice Principal, Ben Walker, noted, "Detentions, suspensions and, in one case, expulsion from the school only seemed to bring a temporary halt to the problem. After we started using TOC Peer Mediation, we were able to get to the root causes such as fear, jealously, etc. As these students grew in self-awareness, they no longer felt a need to harass others. I find the drop in these cases remarkable."10 This application of TOC to Peer Mediation has spread to schools in other countries-most notably to Colombia where, in 2005, then 15-year-old Ana Maria Conde and a group of her peers representing a TOCfE sponsored youth organization, AGOAL Academy, participated in a competition sponsored by the Universidad Nacional and the Mayor of Bogota. Ana and her team were required to submit a project that would present a well-defined problem, a concrete solution, and an implementation plan to achieve the solution. Of the 180 submitted projects, 36 were chosen to be presented in front of the Mayor and representatives of the University. As an award to AGOAL Academy for achieving first place on their use of TOC in Peer Mediation, the University sponsored TOC training of 10,000 students and 100 peer mediators.11 The Cloud works with children of all ages to develop their abilities to solve problems wherever they encounter them. Therefore, in addition to painting a Cloud template on the playground in Nottingham, England for her students to resolve external conflicts during recess as pictured in Fig. 26-5, then head teacher Linda Trapnell12 in 1998 began to use Clouds to analyze problems in literature.

After reading an age-appropriate version of Oliver Twist to an assembly of 200 children between the ages of 4 and 7, Trapnell used the TOC processes to guide the students to define Oliver's internal conflict regarding peer pressure to steal. In TOC, a problem is not defined until it is presented as a conflict between two things. According to these young children, the conflicting choice was to be a pickpocket or not to be a pickpocket as noted in Fig. 26-6. After summarizing the problem through the TOC graphic organizer, the Cloud, Trapnell then asked the students to think of reasons why, in order to satisfy his need for money, Oliver assumed he had to become a pickpocket.

FIGURE 26-5 Cloud on the playground. (Source: Linda Trapnell, used with permission.) FIGURE 26-6 Cloud in literature example. (Source: TOCfE, used with permission.) These reasons represent inferences13 and are an academic benchmark necessary to interpret information and to develop higher order thinking and problem-solving skills. Many strategies rely on combinations of definitions, examples, and visual illustrations to teach the concept of inference and how to apply it, but while helpful, they do not always sufficiently evoke the assumptions from which inferences can be drawn. The systematic, concrete questioning technique in the Cloud to raise assumptions is very simple and effective in enabling even very young students to draw inferences based on their individual experiences, knowledge, and opinions and to synthesize this information as they very simply explain the logical connections in information.

In this way, students are able to create their own scaffolds between their existing prior knowledge and the desired new knowledge. This scaffold also makes the learning more personally relevant to the students, thereby enhancing their motivation to learn. Enabling students to summarize, draw inferences, and identify deeper and broader perspectives of all sides are important academic benchmarks upon which students are tested. The more students are able to achieve these learning objectives for themselves through a systematic teaching methodology, the more they are able to meet their own learning needs.

After Trapnell's young students hypothesized that Oliver must have thought there was no way to acquire money other than by stealing, they became engaged in the next step of the process: creative problem solving. Guided by the TOC approach to find win-win solutions that meet both needs in the Cloud-in this case, the need for money and to maintain a good conscience-they created new solutions, such as Oliver could wash windows or get a job in a shop.14 Teacher-directed discussion on the assumptions and inferences that connect elements of the Cloud enables students to be exposed to similar and different interpretations in a way that helps them evaluate and learn from their own and other perspectives. Therefore, this process also exposes gaps in understanding due to incorrect assumptions and inferences as when one student suggested Oliver could wash cars as a way of making money. If students are exposed to the appropriate missing information, then they can challenge their own inferences, as did this very young student, who revised his solution accordingly to "Oliver could look after horses." When students realize they have the tools and skills to fix their own mistakes and to solve their own problems, they feel more justifiably self confident and motivated to do it again.

The Logic Branch

Students do innately try to make sense of the world around them. Therefore, they struggle when they try to learn facts and ideas that are disconnected and seemingly unrelated. The TOC Logic Branch helps students to create these logical connections using cause and effect to organize, sequence, and explain information in a way that makes sense and can be more easily remembered and analyzed. When analyzing text through Logic Branches, students are able to connect and scaffold information in a way that helps them derive and discover for themselves main ideas, generalizations, and other conclusions intended as lesson objectives. In this way, students are able to remember information more easily through the connections rather than having to memorize them as isolated facts. Figure 26-7 illustrates how students are using the logic branch to connect information in a science lesson in Israel.15 In Tacoma, Maryland, 8th grade history teacher Manfred Smith (2007) found the Logic Branch highly effective to differentiate instruction to students of vastly disparate levels of prior knowledge and skills. In a presentation at the 10th TOCfE International Conference,16 he reported that during yearly formal certification processes at his school, teams of evalua-tors could not distinguish between the work of his students considered to have learning disabilities and that of his students considered to be gifted. In the words of Jennifer Harris (2003), 8th grade Inclusion Teacher for World Studies, ". . . the TOC process has helped the students put an immense amount of facts and information into a logical and systematic order. From this, they are able to extract and apply information to writing prompts, group discussions, and expand their answers beyond basic recall. This is phenomenal because many of the students being served in this class were once self-contained special needs students who are reading at or near a third or fourth grade reading level." 17 The work of these students validates their capabilities to use a logical structure and methodology that enables them to make sense of-and explain-information at their own developmental level.

FIGURE 26-7 Logic Branch in science example. (Source: Gila Glatter, used with permission.) An example of home educator Marilyn Garcia (2006) adds validity to this conclusion. She engaged her own 6- and 9-year-old children in the same history lesson because they both were able to contribute in a meaningful and focused way to lesson objectives by using the Logic Branch. After reading a poem to them about Paul Revere's ride, Garcia asked her younger child to write down the sequence of the main events by very simply prompting her with "what happened then?" Afterward, she asked the older child to provide supportive details and inferences that logically explained the chain of events also by using a simple questioning prompt of "if, then, because?" between the statements. The results presented in Fig. 26-8 demonstrate that, using the same systematic thinking tool, these two students, within the same family and with very diverse developmental skills and prior knowledge, were able to participate in a collaborative, focused, and developmentally appropriate way to achieve lesson objectives.18 The Branch, like the Cloud, can also be applied by children with diverse problems and in developmentally appropriate ways as a methodology to improve their relationships with others and by that improve their everyday lives. One of the first teachers taking a TOC seminar was Florida English teacher Belinda Small, who discovered that the Branch could very simply enable students to self-regulate their behaviors. She demonstrated that, when children can identify for themselves the cause-and-effect relationships between actions and consequences that affect them negatively, they are much more likely to take corrective actions on their own and even to establish different behavior patterns that lead to positive, rather than negative, outcomes.

FIGURE 26-8 Differentiating instruction with the Logic Branch. (Source: Marilyn Garcia, used with permission.) Small writes, "Shortly after I was trained in TOC, I began to adapt one of the thinking methods (the negative branch) to get students to write down for themselves the consequences of their actions. The application was so effective with my 7th grade that soon all the teachers on my team began to send their disruptive students to me rather than the office because the process I was using is so effective! The amazing thing is that the students actually fix their own problems. All I do is get them to use the process. I think the students can write this so easily because they have experienced the chain of events. In this way, they are also developing a skill-cause and effect-which is sometimes otherwise difficult to teach. Using this method they can develop the skill by building-"scaffolding"-on prior knowledge rather than having to learn it as an independent skill."

In describing the circumstances of a case study depicted in Fig. 26-9, Small writes, "In one situation, when a student had been making disruptive noises in another teacher's class, she asked for my help. The TOC Thinking Processes enabled this problematic student to think for himself the cause and effect outcomes of his actions. Although I did the initial writing of his words, at one point I had to leave to attend to my own class (obvious in the graphic). Nevertheless, this normally very disruptive student picked up the pencil-and the responsibility-and continued in his own words and graphics. We discussed what he could do to prevent the final outcomes and he wrote down some suggestions that were not new ideas. What was new in this case was that this time they were his ideas."

FIGURE 26-9 Using the Logic Branch with disruptive students. (Source: Belinda Small and TOCfE, used with permission.) "The results? Although this student had been sent to the principal's office 40 times in the previous 6 weeks, after this experience with TOC, he completed the rest of the school year (6 months) without a repeat offense with this teacher."19 Holly Hoover of Virginia similarly quantified outcomes. "Of all my students who completed their negative [logic] branches on being tardy to class, none have been late again. 100% success! I like those odds! Not only do they see the consequences of their behavior from all angles (and where the behavior can lead to down the road) they also actually seem to like the assignment. Because of this, and the fact that it is not 'writing sentences,' the traditional assignment, the negative branches are always a 'positive' experience."20 Indeed, many teachers have students write the positive results of desirable actions, such as doing homework, so that they can identify and take ownership of responsible choices that lead to positive outcomes for all concerned.21 Small's very simple, innovative, and highly effective application of the branch to children's behavior has been used with millions of children worldwide. In Perak, Malaysia, Principal Hajah Ahmad Rashidi uses a kinesthetic application of it by drawing templates for branches on the playground for children to use as hopscotch of cause-and-effect consequences as shown in Fig. 26-10.22 FIGURE 26-10 Using the Logic Branch as hopscotch. (Photograph and translation by Khaw Choon Ean, used with permission.) TOCfE was introduced in Malaysia in 2000 through the Curriculum Development Centre as part of a Ministry of Education project called the Transition Program. The program was developed to address the problem of students who enter school at age 7 with different levels of readiness. In addition to the rich diversity of language within the student population,23 early childhood education before the age of 7 is at the discretion of parents and is not publicly funded.

Khaw Choon Ean, then head of Special Projects, designed the materials and engineered a cascade of training for all first grade/year one teachers in Malaysia-30,000 of them in 8000 primary schools and all within a mere 3 months. It was reported in Ministry tracking and review of the program that, even when introduced through curriculum lessons, students began to apply the TOC tools to real-life problems with siblings and classmates.24 The use of the Cloud and Logic Branch has spread into Malaysian secondary education as a methodology to make instruction in social sciences more relevant and interesting. They have also been incorporated into civics textbooks at several grade levels as a methodology to promote responsible citizenship.25

The Ambitious Target Tree

The results of a third TOC tool, the Ambitious Target Tree, further substantiates why the TOC Thinking Processes work with students to take responsibility for their own learning and behaviors. After first articulating a goal or "ambitious target," the next step in the process requires students to analyze the situation before deciding on a course of actions-as do the other TOC tools. Therefore, students first identify "what to change," which are the obstacles that prevent the attainment of the target. This is followed by "what to change to"-the intermediate steps that will remove the existence of the obstacle. "How to cause the change" requires that the intermediate steps are concrete and feasible actions that are properly sequenced. The process can be used to learn subject matter through the analysis of targets, obstacles, and intermediate objectives or on individual or group targets such as one used at Maria E. Villarreal Primary School in Escobedo, Mexico.

FIGURE 26-11 Be the best students Ambitious Target. (Translation by Alexandrina Gonzalez. Souce: TOCfE, used with permission.) Teachers Zulema Almaguer and Miquel Perez Reyes used the Ambitious Target Tree tool as, in their words, "one of several TOC tools with very problematic groups of students to change their attitudes. In one case we worked with a group on the Ambitious Target of 'Being the Best Students.' When the students wrote their obstacles, they blamed others, but when they thought of ways to overcome their obstacles, they took the responsibility for the solution."

As evident in Fig. 26-11, in the first obstacle, the students characterized the teachers as "grumpy." However, even though only of primary school age, these children were able to infer the reason that their behaviors might be contributing to the teacher's behavior and, from that inference, realize that they themselves could remove this obstacle through their own actions. The teachers conclude, "The students are learning to value themselves. The group was very much in conflict, but now I can see they are growing up because they are using the TOC tools to think through their problems."26 Does it make sense that most children are more motivated to implement a plan or project when they can meaningfully contribute to it? Using the tool in group projects not only engenders focused collaboration but also can expose obstacles that otherwise could be undetected and therefore continue to block the target. This was the situation with Florida teacher Belinda Small, working with TOCfE Senior Research Scholar Dr. Danilo Sirias from Saginaw Valley State University, Michigan.27 Small applied the Ambitious Target Tree with her 7th grade English class on a subject highly relevant to those impacted by standardized tests.