Aligning Bell Curves

The bell curve was the analytical tool used by educators to marginalize those who do not fit within the normal range of intelligence – intelligence as measured through western-biased  tests. There is lots of controversy around this measure, especially when someone tries to connect it to other aspects of society - employment, social status, criminal behavior, and so on into the depths of bias and incoherence.

If we remove the aura of elitism from the purpose of the bell curve and look at it as a demonstration of levels of a specific attribute or skill within the general population it can be an abstract tool to help understand how to optimize an organization and ultimately how strategically position an organization when confronted with evolving market demands. Essentially the bell curve represents the notion that there are lots of people in the ‘average’ category , some with more and some with less.

Since this may be outside of the typical / deep rooted understanding of the bell curve - take something like athletic ability. They say people who are high performance athletes have an acute awareness of where their body is and how it moves. They probably also have a physique that is conducive to their chosen sport (swimmer’s build, runner’s build, wrestler’s build, etc...). Their body is also constructed in a way that makes their movements more efficient. Their mind can imagine the proper execution of their skills. So people who are in the average range of the athletic ability bell curve have some of these attributes, people in the upper range have more, people in the lower have less.

In the world of musical talent the bell curve could have  the ‘tone deaf’ at one extreme and the composer that imagines the music before it is written, just as a writer thinks the text before it is written, the artist the painting before the brush stroke, at the other extreme.

Educational organizations struggle with learners who fall outside of the average range. There is a time table structure for the school day that says all students need to spend a specific amount of time in front of a teacher to gain the knowledge required to proceed to more advanced levels and eventually graduate. In some cases this measured interaction is also the basis for funding. It also can be the measure to compare the relative value of similar institutions. When the real measure of success is demonstrating the ability to complete a task how do you work with the student who needs more time, and how do you respect the time of the student who needs less time. The time table model actually entrenches the belief that the educational system has the right to waste the life of highly performing students and also abandon those who need the additional time. Recognizing the individual needs of students is one of the justifications for a self-paced learning environment.

We now see the mantra ‘any time, place, pace, path learning' which promotes individualized programs and is the driver for online learning. The difficulty in the implementation of truly ‘any time, place, pace, path learning' is releasing the time-tabler's stranglehold on the educational system.

Public education also struggles with the notion of excellence. There is a tendency to try to provide equal access to programs: if you start a fine arts program or a high performance sports program in one school, you need to offer it in all schools – a Julliard on every corner concept. This leads to the perpetuation of mediocrity. This is fine if that is your goal, but representing your efforts as superlative is false advertising since statistically there are not enough people in the expert area of the bell curve to staff anything other than average programs. There is also no ability to customize according to the varied levels of commitment in students.

The magnet school is based on the notion that you pair expert mentors with highly skilled and committed learners. You then create an environment  that meets their needs in the best way possible. The 'state' says we still have to shepherd them up the ladder of educational achievement but priorities are different for an individual whose life goal is the Olympics, Hollywood, or Everest. Yes it is an elitist attitude, which for some has no place in public education, but the reality of the bell curve distribution of life is that we do not all have the same abilities or drive, we do not all have the same past or future but we all have the same rights to be the best we can be in society. A multiplier of the possibilities created by the magnet school occurs when the reputation or synergy of the institution allows connections to external sources of excellence.

The grim reality of life is that everything can be arrayed on a bell curve.  You trust your doctor (or maybe not), but there is no guarantee that your doctor finished at the top of the class. Someone was at the bottom of the class that year. A good server in a restaurant never writes an order down. A less than good server brings your salad to the next table.

The struggle in any organization is recognizing that everyone is somewhere on a variety of bell curves. In addition to the required employment skill sets these demonstrate their levels of commitment, creativity, divergence in their thinking, ability to adapt, ability to multi-task, etc...

The move to digital learning technologies in education, as a response to the evolving culture of learners, is changing the bell curves and shifting the points of excellence required in our institutions. Maybe it is time to take stock.

Next topic - the perils of site based management.