Marketing By Any Other Name

For the purpose of this entry, "marketing" is the activity aimed at creating and maintaining the organization's image and position, so customers will tend to get their products or services from the organization instead of from competitors. There are other useful aspects of marketing, such as adapting the organization to the needs of the customers, but we will deal with those aspects separately. Indulging in marketing is often conceived of as selfish. And it is in a way. For that reason, most people who work in the field of education see marketing as incompatible with their work. Education is not a commodity to be marketed and sold. True. However:

Every school has an image in the public. This image is influenced by messages and signals that find their way out of the school, either with or without explicit action by the school. The question is whether the school should consciously influence these messages and image. The word consciously is key here, because the school does of course influence these messages: By choosing the name of the school; by talking to individual parents; by talking to the PTA; by choosing the subject for the school play; by talking with the pupils, etc. The school’s image is influenced by the type of neighborhood in which It is located. Whether we like it or not, the school’s image is determined to a large extent by the mix of ethnicity and socioeconomic backgrounds represented by the pupils. Certainly the image is also affected by rumors - whether true or false - about problems in the teachers’ lounge, in the schoolyard, etc. Messages and signals that determine the school’s image don’t just leak, they spew all over the place. And they matter. In this case, it would be better to work on these messages consciously, and not allow chance and ill will determine the fate of the school.

None of this is new. In reality, principals are very aware that their choices convey messages that determine the image of the school. They usually choose their words carefully when talking to parents. They have a certain message in their mind - to the pupils and to the community - when they select a subject for the school-play. Except they usually don't call it "marketing." And maybe they are right. In business and politics, the activity of managing the organization's image and position is referred to as marketing or public-relations. We may use these terms, or select another term that may be a better match for education - both because of the way we want to see education as different than all these self-interest-ridden fields, and because of the real differences. By the way, being careful of the words being used instead of "marketing" to create and maintain the right image, definitely counts as a marketing concern.

A few words about these self-interest-ridden fields. In business, the goal of the organization, and therefore the goal of marketing is quite clear: To promote the business interests of the organization. Sometimes, there is a secondary goal of promoting the well-being of the employees, with the understanding that in the long term it will affect the business interest of the organization. This is indeed different than the goals of a school, which has a primary obligation to the pupils, the parents and to society. Note that very often businesses and politicians tell us how much they care for us, but the reader wouldn't be shocked at a claim that it’s just lip-service on the way to take care of their own interests. This must be different with schools, which are tools used by society to groom the pupils to be future members of the society.

This special relationship with the concept of “marketing” is not unique to schools or even education in general. It is also the case for any organization with strong non-business interests - an interest in society in general, or in a certain social agenda. Amnesty International needs to create a certain image in order to be effective. Médecins Sans Frontières, ICRC, etc - all encounter similar questions about how to market themselves, so they can perform their function within society and for society. The issue may be relevant to many volunteer-based organizations. Can’t be totally selfless, but shouldn't be very selfish.

Part of the issue around marketing is the question “Who is US, who is CUSTOMER, and who is COMPETITOR?” (We can leave out the less important question of “what is PRODUCT?”) In a business, “US” is the organization, with some statements about how “our employees are our most important asset,” and about our “partnership with our customers.” In a business, CUSTOMER is usually whoever signs the check. COMPETITOR of a business is whatever other business which is in a position to convince CUSTOMER to sign a check with the wrong payee name on it - COMPETITOR instead of US.

Who is US in education? In a social organization such as a school, the term is less clear: Does US refer to the ministry of education? To the principal? Do the teachers and other school staff count? The pupils? Parents? Society? If we suspend our cynicism for a while, one possible answer is YES. We are working together towards a common goal. It’s a partnership, where every partner can contribute to or damage the effort. Every partner has to continuously show that they are worthy contributors. Every partner should also make sure others know what this partner can contribute to them, so the other can benefit. These are the goals of marketing in this context.

What about the definition of education CUSTOMER? Nobody in particular. Everybody. Broadly speaking, without getting into the bedeviled details, each partner needs the cooperation of the other partners. For example: The teachers need the school organization; the school needs the pupils, so it needs the parents to send them to the school; the parents need the teachers to teach the pupils; society needs the graduated pupils, etc. It is a good idea for partners to treat each other a bit like customers - make them happy, but not at any cost.

And who is education COMPETITOR? In a way, schools are competitors to each other, competing over the pupils. In a way, pupils are competitors to each other, competing over positions in a good school and later - positions in society. But since they are also part of the same US, it would be good if they compete nicely. The term “coopetition” may give a way of thinking about it.

In this context, instead of using US, CUSTOMER, COMPETITOR etc., the term STAKEHOLDER gains usefulness. We are all stakeholders in the education system. School may be seen as an organization of stakeholders, with a common goal. Schools exist in an environment where other such organizations exist, looking for partners in the same pool of partners, using and generating resources in the same pool of resources, and largely sharing the same goal.

Maybe the word "marketing" can't cover social organizations in general, and education in particular. Here's a first whack at it: How about "Societing?"

Balance: Do vs. Show

"Justice must be seen to be done," but putting too much emphasis on showing may be missing the point. More generally, PR - public relations - are part of the activity of anybody interacting with the public. Sometimes PR is done explicitly, employing PR professionals. Sometimes it is more implicit: An entity interacting with the public may let public relations just happen - let the public find out about the entity's activity and make up its mind about what it (the public) thinks about the entity.

But this is theoretical and abstract. Let's bring it to more earthly terms. First, when we consider interaction with the "public," it refers to any public: At one extreme, the relevant public may be any person who might buy a cell-phone in the next 5 years. At the other extreme, the public may be your boss. (I wouldn't go into the normal but uncomfortable case of the public being your spouse.) How much should one concentrate on doing one's job well, and how much should one concentrate on making sure the boss knows how well the job is being done? Probably should find a balance. Same with making a good and/or inexpensive cell-phone, and then marketing it to let the world know about it. Making the cell phone is not enough. PRomoting it is not enough. Should find a balance.

And here is the payload of this entry: The question is how much work at school should be directed at doing well in teaching, education and whatever it is a school does, and how much work should be directed at showing the public what we do and how well we do it. Put more bluntly: Do we market the school? Many people consider this a very easy question. Some say it's simply heresy: Of course we don't market education - it's too precious, too serious an issue. Others say it's simply reality: Of course we market education - how else would we get students?

But this is not such a simple issue. On one hand, schools have a public. Several publics, actually: Students, parents, teachers, education establishment officials, politicians, and probably more. They all need to know about the school, and if the school doesn't take some responsibility to make sure they know, they may be underinformed, misinformed - by rumors, disinformed - by ill-wishers, and in general badly informed. That wouldn't be good for neither the school nor the public.

No need to worry, though. Every school I ever saw does take some responsibility for how the public sees it: There are pep talks to teachers and students; there is often an ongoing dialog with the parents through the PTA and directly; there is an ongoing discussion with the superintendents and other officials; there is often a school web-site describing what is going on in the school, and possibly stating the school's values. This counts as PR and as marketing. So in reality, schools do engage in something akin to marketing, and the question is not about whether or not they should be putting effort into marketing, but more specific questions. How much effort? What tools of marketing? And most importantly: How to make sure the focus on marketing doesn't compromise the precious and serious education activity?

Thinking about the answers is worthy of its own entry - another time.

One more thought: Ralph Waldo Emerson is said to have said: "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." I haven't lived through the mid 19^th century, but in the context of mid 20^th to early 21^st, I can say he was clearly wrong: One must put a good marketing effort and at least start beating the path, before the world notices and does anything. Even if the mousetrap is really good.

Balance: Equality vs. Freedom

For those of us who felt the previous balancing acts were too lightweight, here's one which is too heavy: The balance between equality and social justice on one hand, and freedom of choice and action on the other. Universal issues that are also tied into the subject of education.

Justice is located deep in the eye of the beholder. Just talk to members of warring parties in any war zone. If you don't happen to live in a war zone, just look at any decision of the supreme court of justice (of any country), divided roughly along the center line. Often along party lines, too. Justice is not very clear even for those few who have the job of dishing it out for us all. No pure truth.

Social justice is more specific than just justice, but not any closer to consensus. Is it socially just to let the poor wallow in their poverty? Is it socially just to let the willfully dysfunctional be insulated from the consequences of their actions - by giving them money for free? Is it socially just to rob the rich and give to the poor? Is it socially just to allow the rich to take advantage of the poor? All these questions are actually one and the same question. Just different points of view looking at the same reality. If see myself as being poor, I have a very clear view of social justice. If I see myself as rich, I also have a clear - and different - view. No pure truth.

Equality is even more specific. Equality of opportunities is more specific yet. But still no pure truth in sight. Or in insight. Equal opportunity overcoming economic background, social/ethnic background, family background, inborn talent, disabilities - inborn or acquired, etc. How much should society invest in the most disadvantaged individuals to make sure they get an equal opportunity? Twice as much as for the averagely advantaged? Twenty times? Two hundred times? This looks like an exaggeration, but it isn't necessarily: Imagine how much effort and resources are needed to straighten the playing field for someone with a low IQ, born to a poor, alcoholic single mom and raised in the streets by no one in particular. And for how long does society need to keep flattening the playing field - providing equal opportunities? Until the age of six? Twelve? Eighteen? Eighty? At what point is a person considered to have received the fair opportunity, and if they failed they should live through the consequences? Ever? There is much room for discussing these questions, and the many books and philosophical works written on it haven't filled that room. No pure truth.

Freedom is nice. We like freedom. We like our own freedom - not so sure how we feel about other people's freedom. We say one person's freedom ends where another person's nose begins, but there are so many noses around. Some noses are so large that there is not much room for freedom around them. I am referring to those who claim the right to be offended at any utterance other than praise.

Honing in on the aspects of freedom that need to be balanced with aspects of equality: Consider affirmative action, designed to improve equality of opportunity in situations where there is a historically privileged part of society (read: white males) and a historically underprivileged part. Affirmative action sounds good: It tries to level the playing field for the underprivileged. But what happened to the freedom of the privileged to pursue happiness as best as they can? To remind us of the different justices, affirmative action has another name - reverse discrimination - which doesn't sound quite as good. We don't like discrimination... Or maybe we do. Depends on whose justice we are looking after.

Equality and freedom have an uncomfortable relation when it comes to education. It is close to the consensus (there are some dissenting views though) that a wide gap in education is not socially just. It is not very good even from a utilitarian point of view of the relatively privileged - wide gaps can cause social unrest, and the privileged like their peace and quiet. So we would want to close the gap. One aspect of that is giving the underprivileged a boost: Directing more resources towards them, encouraging participation in schools, etc. But here is a problem: How much "encouragement"? What do we do with parts of the society that are not as excited about modern education as the secular modern state would like? Do we infringe on the rights of the creationist Christians, the devout Muslims or the ultra-orthodox Jews to educate their kids the way they see fit, even if the secular modern establishment sees it as unfit? Where is their freedom?

Also, choice is a type of freedom. What if the rich want to send their kids to an educational institute that demands high payments from the parents? They should have the freedom to do that, but certainly that would work against equality. A similar and even more distressing issue is that of schools that use admittance testing. To make a the case more acute, let's say it's a primary school, testing for admittance, so to a large extent even a purely cognitive test really tests for the family background of a child. Clearly such a barrier defies equality, but banning it goes against pretty basic freedoms of those who would pass the tests. Disallowing testing can even be seen as denying the talented the equal opportunity to make the most of themselves - to be all they can be. And if it's a high-school, is it OK to test? What about University? No pure truth.

Here's an even worse dilemma: Do we allow schools to dismiss under-performing pupils? If we do, we may be denying an opportunity from someone who may come around, and who may be having trouble temporarily due to their background, which is not their fault. If we don't allow dismissal of such pupils, we must decide how much of the school's limited resources are to be invests in those who would otherwise be dismissed, at the expense of those who are doing OK. If we put more effort into the under-performers, we are hurting the normal pupils. If we don't invest much in the weak pupils, they will not be able to catch up on their own, and they are likely to disrupt the classes they are in. This way we would be hurting both the weak and the strong (at least we are fine on the equality front.) And while we are at it, do we dismiss a pupil who is disruptive in class?

So, it's tricky to "encourage" the underprivileged - it infringes on their freedom and on the equal opportunity for those who would otherwise be privileged. It's tricky to limit the privileged - it infringes on their freedoms. It's tricky to leave education to market forces - it kills equal opportunity. Every compromise idea I heard so far in this context is a package of infringements on freedoms and equality.

This entry is so far quite depressing. I will try to make it more positive by ending with a proposal:

• For the sake of equality of opportunity, the state should finance public schools.
• For the sake of freedom, the state should make it easy for entrepreneurs to create a state-funded school.
  
• For the sake of equality in the face of unequal background, the state may fund schools differentially, to give extra support to schools that cater for the underprivileged.
• For the sake of freedom, the state should keep to a bare minimum its requirements of what and how to teach.
• For the sake of equality, public schools will not test pupils before admittance. If more pupils register to a school than the school can handle - pupils will be admitted by a lottery . An intended side effect would be that this random assignment would facilitate much needed research.
• For the sake of freedom, the state will allow private schools - without state funding - to perform admittance testing, and to dismiss pupils.
• For the sake of equality, state funded schools will be able to dismiss a pupil only after making a convincing effort (time, money, attention) to enable the pupil to continue.

As every other set of rules in this context, it is also a package of infringements on equality and on freedom. Still, it looks like an adequate option.

Balance: Creativity vs. Control

Creativity is great. It allows us to create opportunities and to seize them. It allows us to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Without creativity opportunities are ignored and lost. Without the flexibility accompanying creativity, unforeseen problems are ignored and might kill us.

Control is important, though it doesn't feel quite as great as creativity. Without self-control and its accompanying focus, any individual's enterprise can easily fizzle out, effort being scattered all over the place. Without central control, any complex enterprise is likely to disintegrate into individuals and small groups acting in different directions.

Generally speaking, control mechanisms tend to make creativity more difficult. But there are ways to combine control and creativity. For example, general control can be achieved by requiring adherence to plans and orders on the larger scale, while leaving room for creativity and local decisions on the smaller scale. In the field of education, this may translate to something like the charter schools in the US. These schools must adhere to certain requirements, such as a certain level of proficiency of the students in various fields. But there is much room for local control and creativity in how the pupils are taught, and what they may be taught in addition to the centrally imposed requirements.

Creativity vs. Control is quite related to Planning vs. Acting. Creativity is akin to Planning in that both keep the options open, allow changes and flexibility, and generally view the world at a rather wide angle. Control and Acting are similar in that both look at the world at a focused, narrow angle, and are guided by the idea of sticking to the original plan. Both Control and Action have limited peripheral vision, so they both are likely to miss some ideas and opportunities. It's a sacrifice necessary to allow concentration on achieving something, rather than considering something.

The relationship between control and creativity is a bit more complex than just being two ends of a continuum. In some ways constraints, such as those imposed by a controlling authority, provide opportunities for creativity, where control allows it to exist. I was working with an architect on building a house (that horror story can fill another book), and he was happy to solicit constraints from me. It seemed that limitations can serve as anchors, or as bases around which to build his ideas.

Most state education systems err on the control side. They prescribe the curriculum, pedagogic methods, budget, timing, testing, organizational structure, labor relations, legal standing, insurance and liabilities, values, etc. This is not a surprise, since control spells power, and state-systems speak the language of power. But this leaves very little room for creativity, resulting in such an inflexible structure that any opportunity seized or any unexpected problem averted are probably an indication of punishable non-compliance by someone in the system.

While working with city officials and education system principals etc., it is clear that their work is severely controlled by others. At the same time, it is clear that there is great creative potential among them: If they are allowed to dream and to find solutions to tough problems on the way to realize the dreams - they dream; they are creative. This is a failing of mine, but I wouldn't normally expect them to be that. It gives room for hope that while the education system organization is problematic - overly controlling - the people comprising the organization can easily become the lively members of a more flexible and creative organization, if the establishment only allows them to be that.

Balance: Planning vs. Acting

Striking the right balance is tricky in many fields. For example, how much attention should I devote to blogging, and how much to actions in the material world? But that's a small one. There are a few bigger balance-related dilemmas that I want to address. None of them is a philosophical breakthrough, but I find it useful to lay them out clearly.

Regarding Planning vs. Acting: The extremes are known to be bad: Action without planning is likely to produce failure. Planning without acting - known as "analysis paralysis" - doesn't produce even that. "Measure twice, cut once" is a standard admonition. Maybe we should measure thrice? No universal answers. It's good to keep the dilemma in mind. It's even better to develop the mental habit of noticing when extra planning ceases to produce much higher quality plans, and then acting.

Also notice the planning vs. acting issue is a dynamic one: Planning usually comes first, then acting, then... Another phase of planning. Many projects can benefit from an incremental, iterative plan-act-plan-act-... sequence. And it isn't always a distinct sequence. Sometimes planning and action take place at the same time - planning the next action while performing the previous one. There is even an interesting case made for following the last action with a pre-planning phase - see "A Rational Design Process: How And Why To Fake It."

To make sure this dilemma is connected to the main theme of the blog - Education Revolution - note that in education there is always the question of how much research (read "Planning") should be done before rolling out (read "Acting") an educational program. It is shocking how much is done on the extremes: endless planning in some cases, planless action in others.