Successful leaders make decisions with confidence. They have the pulse of their constituents. Organizations lacking such leaders refer everything for study so that if things go wrong, they can't be blamed; they are content to let the special-interest groups run the show, and their concern is the process, not results. Therein lies a major downfall with Utah's education systems.

We've had studies done by education professionals and members from the business community. Each group has seen the problem of education with its own self-serving solutions. Former Gov. Mike Leavitt's business coalition made recommendations of what the Legislature, educators and the administration should do; however, they excluded themselves from any responsibility.

It's time to involve the "customers" — students and parents — rather than "stakeholders," who are the vested interest groups — professionals, unions, the choice and voucher advocates. They seem less concerned about what our students need to compete in the world marketplace and that our economy needs workers who can create and innovate.

While the Legislature seems to lack the political will and is content to let the special-interest groups have their way, they continue to burden teachers, and the bureaucracy, with needless programs and regulations leaving taxpayers with the tab. Our Legislature has failed to carry out its constitutional responsibility in exercising its power to restructure education to meet the challenges our society faces in today's flat world.

Now, the K-12 Alliance (made up of education professionals) released a new study, the third study, on the teacher shortage; the first was in 2003-04 and the second in 2004-05. The latest is being touted as containing radical ideas, but it looks like more of the same, e.g., maximizing the use of existing K-12 teachers, making teachers' salaries competitive, increasing scholarships and loans for people preparing to be teachers, enhancing the training capacity of public colleges of education and the final recommendation, another study. The problem with professionals conducting the studies is that they seem more focused on making the system run rather than what it is supposed to produce.

The recommendations in all three reports appear designed to "enhance" the state's higher education's ability to get more tax dollars to recruit people to enter its teacher education programs. That in spite of the 2003 study by the Utah State Office of Education that found many students don't want to enter the profession and those who do want to leave it as soon as they can. One of the most important problems the first study found (but seemingly ignored) is that 40 percent of those who graduate from Utah teacher colleges never enter the profession and that another 40 percent leave the profession after five years. It found that half of the teachers trained came from a private institution, Brigham Young University. So, why are the professionals still recommending tax dollars for public institutions?