It is relatively agreeable that SESI is a Tayloristic model and thus its management has to take a hierarchical approach in any education system. The latter approach is essential since management elements need to countercheck how systems and structures with school settings are run to draw new ideas or better ways of improvements and ensure effectiveness in the running of any organization. Thus, there is a need for top management organizations such as SESI to monitor and evaluate the running of schools to provide desired educational needs. This makes SESI’s position highly desirable and fit for effective running and improvements of schools.
Secondly, the management body has to be separated from the organization it manages. In the case of the Tayloristic approach, planning and execution are integrated as one process with two separate elements for decisions made by the planning body to not get interfered with within the course of execution. The boundaries present professionalism since each party will assume roles of discharging duties assigned responsibly. This creates a convenient environment for running independent systems that are free of interference from any external sources. The planner and evaluator ensure expedited implementation of ideas while the executor literally implements the planner’s idea. This way, SESI ensures that present and new ideas are implemented for the sake of school effectiveness and school improvements in accordance with its name. It is also advisable for the movement to pull ideas from the school institutions and then bring back the ideas to the same institutions. The running of organizations or institutions needs basic and customized ideas such that what exactly happens in those institutions is directly identifiable among involved parties. This appears to be good for learning to be localized such that institutions present familiar materials to their parties and they, in turn, identify with situations in the setting. The significance of SESI in this situation is directly the same in the sense that drawing ideas from school settings and then bringing those ideas back to the same schools is highly likely to lead to effective and improved school systems.
On the other hand, measurement by numbers is sometimes deceptive since accuracy is limited. But Tayloristic approach demands independence of the involved bodies. As such, SESI depends on schools to get the numbers, and sometimes when done without the help of the schools as a Tayloristic model would dictate, then erratic information is inevitable. This hinders the effectiveness and improvement of elements and ideas within school systems. Therefore, SESI should find a source of good information for the numbers and not rely on numbers in their entirety since statistical errors could greatly affect the effectiveness and improvements of schools, contrary to expectations.
In conclusion, it is evident that it is indeed agreeable that SESI is Tayloristic in three dimensions since it works well in the same model. Firstly management elements need to see how the system elements run to draw new ideas on better ways of improvement. Secondly, the management body has to be alienated from the institution it manages for planning and execution to become visibly bordered for decisions of the planning body not to get impeded in the course of execution. Pulling ideas from school institutions and then bringing back the ideas to the same institutions helps in identification purposes. Measurement by numbers is illusory since accuracy is partial and thus SESI should depend on numbers in entirety for decision making.