Kristi Hassett, a trustee in Flower Mound Texas posed the following via Twitter: Many ed reformers want schools to run like businesses. @testsensejt, I wonder what an Industrial Engineer would say about our current testing & accountability regime. What would they look at to determine value? What would they conclude?
My response is a smidge long for a tweet, but the question is a good one and the answer goes right to the heart of the matter:
People in organizations are generally accountable for the quality and efficacy of their decisions, as judged by a supervisor. Organizations are generally held accountable via market forces, and failure via the market generally signals bad decisions by its people. This is true whether you’re a non profit or an engineering firm.
Current school accountability pretends to have invented a competitive market by which to judge schools and then presumes that the position of a school in the market signals the quality of decisions. This is flawed In the extreme.
First, it presumes schools all start with similar raw material and therefore any differentiation in the output can be attributed to those in the school. When it acknowledges that schools do not start with similar raw material, it further presumes that the failure to match the outcomes of those at the highest positions (or at least grow towards them) can also be attributed to those in the school. Having done so, it then presumes that some sort of market force (or public humiliation) can serve as a corrective tool.
But the definition of a quality outcome for a school differs a great deal. The poorest school in America should focus on all of its students walking across a graduation stage with the grit and determination to succeed in life, even though their circumstances may have left them somewhat behind their wealthier peers in academics. That academic deficiency need not have a crippling effect if other skills essential to a successful life can be instilled. That is not to say that a deficiency in academics is irrelevant, but rather, it is a school’s job to make up to the extent possible the gap between what life throws at a student and what he or she needs to thrive. To the degree a school can do that, those deficiencies can be overcome.
And the richest? It’s position in the market as defined by school accountability signals almost nothing regarding the quality of the school. It would have a difficult time not being declared successful. And yet that would not signal if the school is a quality place to learn, if it placed a special emphasis on its small population of less affluent students to ensure they weren’t marginalized, or if the decions being made were in the best interest of the students, parents, and the community.
Which brings me to my second point: school accountability has adopted a market-based accountability that imposes a judgment without ever considering the quality and efficacy of the decisions being made. We know this because had they done so we would not see the high level of correlation between a “quality” school and the relative wealth of the community. Rather, we would have high quality poor schools and low quality rich schools, which is extremely rare in what currently passes for school accountability.
Finally, the signal for a market force chosen for school accountability was a standardized test score. Standardized test scores have the distinct advantage of confirming the bias most people have that rich schools are good and poor ones bad. However, consider this: what if the "market" had been defined as creative output, not standardized test scores. Creativity in students doesn’t follow socioeconomic lines, and so you couldn’t predict from the census data which schools would and would not succeed. Rather, success of the school would be largely dependent on the quality of the decisions made by those who work there.
What the industrial engineer would say, I think, is that educational accountability suffers from a misunderstanding for what accountability is, how it works, the inability to actually recognize quality, and an inability to recognize in the judgments a confirmation bias rather than the truth.