FIGURE 26-12 Raising reading test scores. (Source: Belinda Small, used with permission.) Not surprisingly, when students suggested obstacles to a target of "Raising Reading Test Scores," Small noted that many of them related to lack of confidence in standardized test taking, as noted in Fig. 27-12. What was unexpected to her was why. When students verbalized an obstacle as, "All the answers look the same," Small became aware that many students were primarily having trouble interpreting the multiple-choice answers, and that they lacked a strategy and specific actions to differentiate between the choices. According to Small, using the Ambitious Target tool enabled the students to develop their own strategy and tactics. In her words, "The tool enabled the students to create a step-by-step pattern to answer what to look for and do when reading questions and answers. This method enabled the STUDENTS to: think of the solutions create the language use THEIR logic form the connections between the State Academic Standards make the connections between the State Academic Standards and the FCAT28 test questions."

"Best of all," she concludes, "they used it during the test. I felt the process had a big impact using very little time. It took about 30 minutes on one day to raise obstacles to the target. The next day we used about 15 minutes to think of intermediate objectives and another 30 minutes to organize the sequence of the objectives."29 The TOC thinking and communication tools provide a structure and the questions to empower students to analyze, derive relevance from, and apply what they are learning to their lives now and in the future. When children have ownership not just of the answers but also of the questions that enable them to make sense of the world around them, they are much more able and motivated to take responsibility for what they learn and how they behave. This reality substantially fulfills stakeholders' expectations of good education in preparing children to become productive in the workplace and responsible citizens in a way that actually enhances the resources of those providing education-especially the resource of their time.

Yes, but . . .? How do we ensure that these results do not stagnate or deteriorate but endure and even progress? And what will be the impact of a progression of good results on our existing resources? Full circle . . . or a spiral?

A Process of Ongoing Improvement

There is nothing permanent but change-Herodotus When students-or anyone-exhibit clear thinking, motivation, and improved performance, usually it is noticed, encouraged, and rewarded. While such success brings initial satisfaction and a justifiably enhanced self confidence, it can also create negative branches and raise new obstacles as conveyed in the words of Walt Whitman, "From every fruition of success, no matter what, shall come forth something to make a greater struggle necessary." These obstacles can include: Rising expectations More work Ever changing realities All of which can put pressure once more on our resources. Therefore, we need a process of ongoing improvement. In TOC, the questions of change, just like the tools themselves, are not a one-time fix but, instead, systematically repeated as needed: The repeating cyclical applications of these questions and the TOC tools are intended to create spirals of ever-flourishing improvements whether in a person, a classroom, or an organization-all of which combine in TOCfE. Therefore, not surprisingly, TOCfE has experienced the same core conflict as in Fig. 26-1 and the need to revisit the three questions, given the phenomenon of rising expectations and changing needs from existing and new, more diverse TOCfE stakeholders.

As noted, one of the strengths of the TOC tools is that they can be taught and made relevant in classrooms-and with other groups-of people who have very divergent levels of knowledge, skills, and interests. This relevance has led to diversification within the TOCfE network in terms of specialized applications and interventions, particularly to enable those with special behavioral needs. For example, in The Netherlands, a TOCfE consultant, Fiet Muris, is using TOC with groups of children and parents who are part of the Romani population. They live in caravans and feel the sting of isolation, prejudice, and low academic achievement of these children who attend local schools. The TOC intervention is so effective that local schools and supportive government agencies have joined in creating solutions that are beneficial to all concerned.30 Other such specialized TOCfE applications include: Children and adults who have dyslexia Children considered to be gifted Children at risk to develop addictive behaviors Students in dropout prevention programs Children diagnosed with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy Children with Asperger syndrome Children considered to be asocial and with other significant behavior disorders Adult inmates in the penal system31 The TOC interventions with all these special interest groups have been very effective, as evidenced by the many case studies presented in TOCfE conferences and posted to the TOCfE Website, as well as by a growing amount of research. The research of Edyta Sinacka-Kubik (2006-2007), a PhD student at the Psychology Institute at the University of Gdansk, Poland, who was trained in the tools in a 3-day seminar in 2006, is one such example. Her stated hypothesis is: "There is a possibility to overcome school-educational difficulties when it comes to asocial children by applying the TOC for Education support program." The research involved an experimental group consisting of 22 children regularly attending four sociotherapeutic centers; the implementation of the 18-month TOCfE project; and regular meetings at least once a week for 1.5 hours. The control group contained 22 children regularly attending four sociotherapeutic centers.

Some of her findings are presented in Fig. 26-13 and Fig. 26-14.32 These results are considered statistically significant and they include this summary presented at the 10th TOCfE Conference in Fort Walton Beach, Florida: "TOC group gained significantly lower results in Antisocial Behavior Scale after the experiment.

TOC group gained significantly lower results in Withdrawal Scale after the experiment.

TOC group gained significantly higher results in Socialization Scale after the experiment.

TOC group gained significantly higher results in Motivation to Learning Scale after the experiment.

TOC group made much bigger progress than control group did during the experiment." (PowerPoint summary) FIGURE 26-13 Comparison of aggression research. (Graphics by Edyta Sinacka -Kubik. Source: TOCfE, used with permission.) FIGURE 26-14 Antisocial behavior research. (Graphics by Edytak Sinacka-Kubik. Source: TOCfE, used with permission.) Sinacka-Kubik concludes, "On the grounds of these optimistic results, visible even in a small group, we can think that in much bigger groups, the effect would be more significant. This research has encouraged us to start a new, much wider project."33 Improvements in not only communication and behavioral skills but also in performance were validated in the PhD research of Dr. Jenilyn Corpuz, principal of a high school of more than 3600 students in Quezon City, Philippines. Research for her dissertation looked at "The Impact of the TOC Tools to Determine the Effects of the Theory of Constraints for Education (TOCfE) Tools as Intervention Instruments in the Teaching-Learning Processes in Technology and Livelihood Education." The study, as shared at the 8th TOCfE International Conference,34 included four second-year homogeneous classes at New Era High School that have an average of 60 students per class, handled by one teacher.

One of the specific objectives of the research was to assess the performances of students in experimental and control groups in terms of self-efficacy in communication and behavioral skills. Another specific objective was to evaluate if there was a significant difference between the performances of students in experiment and control groups of content pre-assessment and content post-assessment. Student outputs were rated using a rubric based on the basic education curriculum and TOCfE concepts. Notable increases of the percentage mean scores in experimental group are indicated in the results.35 This published research is helping to address TOCfE's initial lack of empirical evidence and the justifiable need to demonstrate that the TOC tools are aligned with sound learning theory and research methods. More international research projects are now underway in Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States to test implications of the use of TOC to enhance emotional intelligence and the delivery of science and mathematics curricula. This ongoing research reflects the progression of TOC's continuous improvement by using the three questions to know where to focus improvement efforts.

A particular area of focus has always been materials. A comprehensive series of self-learning workbooks for children of various ages was created in the late 1990s and early 2000s in Israel under the direction of Gila Glatter while teaching at Talpiot Teachers' College, Tel Aviv, Israel.36 Some of these workbooks are available in English as is a story that teaches the Cloud for middle school children. A CD-ROM is also available37 that can be used to teach all three tools through an animated children's story. Entitled "The Story of Yani's Goal," this piece of literature has a moral: You can achieve your goals in life if you think your problems through to win-win solutions. The story, soon to be released in book format, can be used in reading classes along with a teacher's guide designed to enhance reading comprehension skills through the content of the story.

TOCfE began training in 1995 with TOC materials38 written for business and industry-particularly those developed for human behavior and based on Eli Goldratt's (1994) book, It's Not Luck. In order to make these workbooks user friendly and more relevant for educators, the workbooks were carefully adapted39 and the TOCfE training materials for seminars are entitled "TACT" (Thinking And Communication Tools). Available in Spanish, Dutch, Hebrew, Russian, Serbian, Portuguese, Polish, and English, these materials primarily teach the three tools through behavior applications. Therefore, much of the dissemination and diversification has been to apply the processes in counseling and interventions with children-and adults-with special behavioral needs.

As noted, Corpuz's (2005) research was based on teaching the tools as interventions to improve cognitive performance as was the Master's thesis of Adora Teano (2005-2006), who concluded, "TOCfE thinking tools have significant effect on the improvement of the grades of the students in English l."40 Action research case studies from the trenches also substantiate the "proof in the curriculum pudding" that the TOC tools, once learned, enable students to create the scaffolds needed to meet their own learning needs, thus saving time and other resources both in and out of school. They are interventions, however, rather than preventive strategies and require the teacher to transfer the application from behavior to that of curriculum. Because of the need to work within existing resources, teachers need the transfer of application to be from existing curriculum to behavior so that students learn these needed life skills while being taught existing curriculum. This latter approach is very much aligned with conclusions for implementing change in educational systems drawn by Dr. Audrey Taylor (2002, 126) in her PhD research that examined TOCfE concerning change agents and performance measurements. These include: "Successful change is accelerated when the training is application specific so that the user can easily implement the new methodology.

Regardless of the content of the change methodology, the faster the results in the classroom, the faster the dispersion of the new methodology."

Therefore, as TOCfE strives to improve, a "what to change" has been to refocus resources on a new generation of workbooks and seminars. Written in 2009 and entitled, Thinking Across the Curriculum, they teach the generic tools specifically through curriculum applications and are written to meet standard professional development criteria with detailed, measurable learning objectives. These materials are being translated into Polish in support of a comprehensive training program beginning in December 2009 and sponsored by MSCDN, a Polish professional teacher training center,41 and the Polish National Institute of Psychological Support.

The focus on curriculum is also the catalyst for an international action-based research project that involves exchanging TOCfE-based curriculum lessons and student work through collaboration on the Internet. Initially the project will include schools in Israel, Mexico, and the Philippines where teachers are using the TOC tools in science, language arts, and mathematics. The project is being organized by schools that are using the TOC tools in counseling and management as well as in curriculum. This holistic approach to school improvement models the ideal to teach by example in every function of the school.

FIGURE 26-15 Ambitious Target of a wedding plan. (Source: Linda Trapnell, used with permission.) Another identified tactic to bring strategic, ongoing improvement in TOCfE is to focus current fundraising efforts in support of creating and maintaining a cutting edge e-library that will house the global bank of examples, research, and other work that TOCfE practitioners wish to share. While protecting intellectual properties of those sharing work, it will provide opportunities for readers to learn from-and improve-ideas in a win-win way that tracks their contributions as well. Through these means, TOCfE can foster innovation and collaboration of all education stakeholders who want to make a meaningful difference by allowing others to use their work in a way that not only, as Jesse Hansen envisioned, "pays in kind" but also "pays it forward."

The TOC tools work without regard to age, culture, or political system as reflected in the wealth of work and vision of all those who have so graciously shared it with TOCfE. The extraordinary scope of TOCfE applications are well characterized in the words of former LASD42 School- and District-Based Administrator Denise Meyer: "The TOC tools are simple enough to be used by kindergartners and profound enough to be used by CEOs."43Figure 26-15 and Fig. 26-16 illustrate this claim through an Ambitious Target of a United Kingdom nursery school student44 and the Ambitious Target of (then) National Capital Regional Director of Philippine Department of Education, Sports and Culture (DECS), Dr. Cora Santiago, who supervised 17 school superintendents responsible for educating 8 million children.45 Using the strategies identified through the Ambitious Target tool, Dr. Santiago wrote a TOC tactical logic branch entitled "ZERO NON-READER" and submitted it to the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) which accepted her as a scholar. After graduating, Dr. Santiago conferred with McDonalds which was interested in the proposal as a corporate responsibility project. The project, called "BRIGHT MINDS READ," was initially implemented in the National Capital Region and is now one of the flagship programs in the country.

FIGURE 26-16 Ambitious Target of Philippines DECS. (Source: TOCfE, used with permission.) The reason for this breadth and depth of application is a common denominator that has roots deep enough to encompass all education stakeholders. The Socratic nature of these systematic, logical tools enables people to discover-for themselves-answers that make sense.

When these solutions are needed because of conflicts or to address negative consequences, children of all ages are able to take ownership of responsible choices without losing face. This "accountability with dignity" is sustainable because it is intrinsically created rather than extrinsically imposed.

The same Socratic tools work in a classroom to give children ownership of what they are learning. When students derive their own answers, it engages perhaps the most important ingredient in education: the student's wish to learn.

As these simple, robust tools continue to combine with the collaboration of all who want to meaningfully touch the future, TOCfE will enable more and more children around the world not only to become responsible and productive adults, but also to engage in everflourishing life-long learning that, like success, is not a destination but a journey.

References

Almaguer, Z. M. and Reyes, M. A. 2001. "Changing the mindsets of groups of disruptive students." Presentation at 2001 TOC TOCfE Mexico Conference, Monterrey, Mexico (March). http://www.tocforeducation.com/att-b/attb02.html Anaya, J. De Ninos and de la Luz Pamanes, M. 2001. "Violence in the home." Presentation at 2001 TOCfE Mexico Conference, Monterrey, Mexico (March). http://www.tocforeducation. com/cloud-b/cb23.html Anonymous. 1994. "Applications of TOC by Okaloosa County Educators," (June 69) Jonah Summer Conference, Ft. Walton Beach, FL: Avraham Y. Goldratt Video Report Series.

Conde, A. M. 2005. "AGOAL Academy." Presentation at 8th TOCFE Education International Conference, Seattle, WA. (August).

Corpuz, J. 2005. Impact of the TOC tools to determine the effects of the Theory of Constraints for Education (TOCfE) tools as intervention instruments in the teaching-learning processes in technology and livelihood education. PhD dissertation, University of the Philippines.

Corpuz, J. 2008. "Curriculum-based research projects." Presentation at 11th TOCFE International Conference, Warsaw, Poland (October).

Garcia, M. 2006. "Differentiated Instruction." Presentation to Maryland Home Education Association, Columbia, MD (November).

de Gaza Gonzalez, A. and Rodriquez, M. 2001. "Enabling juvenile offenders to set goals." Presentation at 2001 TOC TOCfE Mexico Conference, Monterrey, Mexico (March), http://www.tocforeducation.com/att-b/attb09.html Glatter, G. and Kovalsky, S, 2000. The Way of Achieving a Target. Two workbooks (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv, Israel: TOC for Education Israel.

Glatter, G., Wiess, N., and Talek, M. 1999. Solving Day-To Day Conflicts. Three workbooks (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv, Israel: TOC for Education Israel.

Goldratt, E. M. 1984. The Goal: Excellence in Manufacturing. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press.

Goldratt, E. M. 1994. It's Not Luck. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.

Grienbert, M., Goldratt, R., and Glatter, G. 2002. The Rainbow in the Cloud (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv, Israel: TOC for Education Israel.

Harris, J. 2003. http:///www.tocforeducation.com/references/html Hoover, H. 1999. "I have had no further problem with tardiness." http://www.tocforeducation.com/branch-b/bb02.html Hutchinson, M. "TOC in counseling: Taking responsibility for learning, a classroom behavior intervention." http://www.tocforeducation.com/att-b/math3.html and http://www.tocforeducation.com/att-b/math4.html Khaw, C. E. 2004. "TOCfE in Malaysia." Presentation at 7th TOCfE International Conference, Ft. Walton Beach, FL (May).

Khaw, C. E. 2005. Thinking Smart: You Are How You Think. Selangor, Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications.

Khaw, C. E. 2006. "100 children 100 days 100 clouds." Presentation at the 9th TOCfE International Conference, Leon, Mexcio (Sept).

Meyer, D. 1999. "TOC and the Children of Los Angeles." Presentation to 3rd International TOCfE Conference, Los Angeles, CA (Aug).

Meyer, D. and Kelly-Weekes, R. 2000. LA CREME: Los Angeles Conflict Resolution Education Model for Educators. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District.

Muris, F. 2008. "TOC and the children of Romani populations." Presentation at the 11th TOCfE International Conference, Warsaw, Poland (October).

Roby, D. 1999. "An alternative to hazing." http://www.tocforeducation.com/cloud-b/cb2.html Santiago, C. and Visaya, L. 2002. "TOC and Literacy in the Philippines." Presentation at the 6th TOCfE International Conference, Nottingham, England (July).

Sinacka-Kubik, E. 2007. "How to take advantage of Theory of Constraints for Education program to support children's psychosocial development." Presentation at 10th Theory of Constraints for Education International Conference, Ft Walton Beach, FL (October). http://www.tocforeducation.com/researchlist.html Sirias, D., de Garza Gonzalez, R., Rodriguez. M., and Salazar, E. 2007. Success: An Adventure. Saginaw, MI: Author.

Small, B. 2003. "The case of the disruptive student." Presentation at the 7th Theory of Constraints for Education International Conference. Ft Walton Beach, FL (May), http://www.tocforeducation.com/branch-b/bb01.html Smith, M. 2007. "Academic applications: Generating interest, knowledge, motivation and success through TOC thinking tools." Presentation at the 10th Theory of Constraints for Education International Conference, Ft. Walton Beach, FL (October).

Suerken, K. 2008. "The story of Yani's goal" (CD). Niceville, FL: TOC for Education, Inc.

Suerken, K. 2009. Thinking across the Curriculum: The Cloud, the Logic Branch and the Ambitious Target Tree. Three workbooks for teachers. Niceville, FL: TOC for Education, Inc.

Sullivan, T. T., Reid, R. A., and Cartier, B. 2007. The Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization Dictionary. http://www.tocico.org/?page=dictionary Taylor, A. G. 2002. An empirical investigation of the change agents and performance measurements effective in the diffusion of the Theory of Constraints for Education (TOCfE) and implications for business entities. PhD dissertation, Wayne State University.

Teano, A. 2006. The effectiveness of integrating the Theory of Constraints for Education in the teaching learning processing for English I. Masters thesis. University of the Philippines.

Trapnell, L. 1998. "From under a cloud," Child Education 75(August):46"7.

Trapnell, L. 1999. "Storytelling: Oliver Twist." http://www.tocforeducation.com/cloud-c/ccOLhtml.

Trapnell, L. 2000. "Learning how to make logical plans." http://www.tocforeducation.com/att-c/attc04.html Trapnell, L. 2003. "Case study two," Primary Leadership Paper 1:8,1418.

Trapnell, L. 2004. "Theory of Constraints: Thinking for a change," Teaching Expertise 2(Winter):3537.

Walker, B. 1997. Speech at North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement Conference, Chicago, IL (April).

Wiess, N. and Talek, M. 2001. Think Before You Act. Two workbooks (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv, Israel: TOC for Education Israel.

Wong. S. 2000. "TOC mediation to stop name calling." Presentation at the 4th Theory of Constraints for Education International Conference, Monterrey, Mexico (August), http://www.tocforeducation.com/cloud-b/cb7.html

About the Author.

Kathy Suerken has been President of TOC for Education, Inc. since it was established by Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt in 1995. During Kathy's leadership, TOC tools and concepts have been taught in 23 countries to well over 200,000 adults involved in education with an impact on more than 8 million children worldwide.

In addition to speeches at national and international education conferences-such as the National Educator's Congress of the Philippines and the 8th International Conference on Thinking-Kathy's business presentations include a keynote address at the APICS SIG Symposium. Kathy is author of "The Story of Yani's Goal," an animated novelette, numerous TOCfE seminar workbooks, and is co-author of" . . . the Never Ending Story," a children's workbook on conflict resolution.

A former middle school teacher with a BA in History from Wittenberg University, Kathy has received extensive business management training in TOC. She is an AGI Jonah and Jonah's Jonah (facilitator) and is certified in the TOC Thinking Processes by the TOC International Certification Organization. Kathy has received extensive experience in the art of teaching and learning from her students who range from children to Ministers of Education.

Kathy can be reached at Suerken@cox.net.

CHAPTER 27.

Theory of Constraints in Prisons

Christina Cheng

Introduction.

Theory of Constraints (TOC) has a distinguished history of success dealing with constraints in business and education. In Singapore1 where math and science rankings are among the top in the world, its educated human capital is regarded as its most prized asset. At the same time, given the country's limited population, it is viewed as a core constraint. To exploit this constraint and in line with ongoing government policy to improve workforce productivity, an opportunity arose to help long-term unemployed workers reintegrate into the Singapore workforce using the TOC Thinking Processes (TP).

In August 2006, the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) through its Job Re-creation Program in conjunction with the Rehabilitative Division of Singapore Prison Services engaged TOC Asia Pte Ltd. to help prepare pre-release adult prison inmates for outside employment using the TOC TP. As part of the pilot study, selected inmates would attend a TOC mindset management workshop immediately followed by a NTUC job fair at the end of October 2006 to help them secure a job before release. The end goal presented to TOC was to reduce the high job attrition rate of ex-inmates upon release. This meant that any behavioral or mindset change observed during the TOC workshop must be sustained outside the relatively stable prison environment in the face of uncertain external influences in order for the project to be deemed successful.

It was clear that a formidable task was ahead. A major obstacle in the preparation of the workshop was a lack of student conformity in the pilot group, with regard to age, language, education, race, and type of offense. This resulted in extreme variations in class profiles. In a particular training session, a Malay-speaking elderly inmate, slightly deaf and illiterate, could be seen sitting next to an English-educated postgraduate sociologist! Coupled with no available generic training materials, limited prison intuition, no formal background in teaching or psychology to address the disparate range of chronic negative behavior, the biggest question was whether we could adequately address all individual training needs of the diverse pilot group.

FIGURE 27-1 The project timeline.

The other challenging factor was the short course timeframe. In order to meet the October NTUC job fair schedule, the course duration was limited to 18 hours spread over six sessions over 2 weeks. Was it possible to change a person's mindset within such a short time? Project success would be measured by the percentage increase in job retention over the first 3 months of employment upon release. Did it work? At the end of the pilot study,2 job retention over the said period rose threefold from a historical 20 percent to an astonishing 59 percent. Numbers aside, however, we leave it to the reader to gauge the success of the overall project. The program timeline is provided in Fig. 27-1.

What to Change?

Preliminary Study

Demographics of the pilot study group were as follows: 60 male adult offenders Age range 21 to 60 years Primary school education or below (46 percent), secondary (32 percent), pre-university GCE, N, and O level (12 percent), technical (9 percent), degree (1 percent) Malay (50 percent), Chinese (42 percent), Indian (7 percent), Other (1 percent) Weak to basic English comprehension Independent focus group sessions were conducted with the prison officers and inmates prior to workshop commencement to better understand how TOC could be used to bridge the gap between existing rehabilitation and job preparation programs being conducted. Put more simply, we needed to know why the historical job attrition rate was so high. To promote open discussion, uniformed staff and inmates were interviewed separately using a simplified TOC Prerequisite Tree (PRT) framework with an ambitious target of "To be successful in the workplace."3 From the generic list of obstacles raised (e.g., my family does not accept or support me, people look down on me, I am easily influenced by my negative peers, I don't know how or I am not ready to change, I have no positive role model), it became evident that while many inmates had acquired valuable technical and soft job skills (e.g., IT, communication, and interview skills) and underwent targeted rehabilitation to overcome specific types of negative behavior (e.g., anger management, drug addiction) during their prison stay, not all were mentally prepared to face society regardless of whether they had a ready job in hand.