An Educational Contrarian

The basic accountability structure in effective organizations is surprisingly simple. It consists of two parts: the first is a thorough accounting, and the second is an appropriate signal ( thorough and appropriate are key terms here). An effective organization is defined as one that regularly achieves its mission. The accountings that go into an accountability system are determined by what needs to be accomplished in order to achieve the organization’s mission. A hospital would consider patient outcomes. A business would consider its ability to be innovative or profitable. Regardless, the accounting must be thorough. No one would invest in a company that released one month’s worth of financial records from one of its ten divisions. The decision to invest would be invalid. No one would have surgery in a hospital that released only its patient outcomes for a type of surgery other than what you will have. In either case the information to make an effective decision is missing. ...

One of the more interesting (and harmful) things to come out of the test-based accountability era is that we now equate testing with accountability, to the point where most people can’t see how accountability could be done without testing. This, however, is wrong on so many levels. In my work we approach the issue from a far more practical angle. My question years ago was simple: is there a structure or framework to the way in which effective organizations do accountability? Even though hospitals, businesses, and non-profits function in dramatically different ways, and whether formal or informal, is there something they have in common when their results match their mission? The answer was a resounding yes: a common set of patterns and frameworks is most definitely shared across effective organizations. Upon that discovery my work immediately shifted to a simple premise: if effective organizations have an accountability framework in common, and we want schools to among the most effectiv...

The question in the title to this blog has been posed to me twice in the last week, which I think is due to states releasing their accountability judgments of schools just before the kids all come back. Common sense might suggest that only an idiot would say no. I'm not an idiot (according to most people I meet) but I'm here to say that we'll do more harm than good if we oversimplify our responses and just say, "sure." First, we need to identify what we mean by a best teacher . I can do that easily. A best teacher is one who can maximize an educational benefit for the children in his or her classroom. We could get even more specific if we wanted and say that the best teacher for a child is the one who can maximize the benefit for that specific child, but for the sake of the argument here, lets keep it general: a best teacher is one who can maximize the educational benefit for children. Second, we need to identify what we mean by our most challenging school...

Just because someone offers you a snake oil cure for how to improve the quality of public schools doesn’t mean you have to swallow it. In fact, you shouldn’t. The latest snake oil cure in Texas is school accountability via school grades. I know a good bit about school accountability—I make a living from the topic and have a deep-seated belief that true accountability is both necessary and achievable. And that snake oil isn’t the answer. It’s easy to see the snake oil for what it is if you back up and ask a simple question: how does accountability work in successful organizations? I’ve explored the answer for years, written a book and a bunch of articles on the topic, and now work with schools to put in place what I’ve discovered. The answers to the question reveal the difference between a false accountability that will miss every policy goal it claims to support, and a true accountability that can move an organization in a desired direction. I’ll mention three principles of true ...

Education Commissioner Morath in the great state of Texas is about to release grades for schools. His quote: " The idea that the design of the system was meant to highlight both high levels of student achievement and high levels of educator impact makes this essentially the fairest system in the history of the state of Texas." (Article by Julie Chang in the Austin American Statesman, August 7, 2018--see it here --italics are mine.) The claim in italics is bogus. And it is easy for anyone to see why. Think of what it means to assess a student. You can do that by imagining the full range of assessment done to create understanding regarding a student or a school as a large sphere, with many layers to it. Trying to understand all the complexity to properly assess student or school needs and assign appropriate judgments is a constant, on-going thing. It requires trained teachers, lots of effort and energy, and proximity to the students being assessed. Tests are, by design...

Formal standards standardize something. It is useful to standardize some things, such as electrical outlets, allowable car emissions, and the minimum requirements to become a doctor, lawyer, or nurse. Standardizing the outlet means that any electrical device with a compliant plug will fit, regardless of who manufactured either of them. Standardizing allowable car emissions helps keep the air clean. Standardizing minimum requirements to enter certain professions is intended to ensure a basic level of quality and protect citizens from those selling snake oil. It should be noted that the standards that exist in the world have a profound impact on each of our daily lives. I can go to any gas station and know that the gas nozzle will fit in my car, rather than having to find a Honda nozzle for my Honda car. I can buy a car and trust it will meet federal standards regarding emissions. I can go to the doctor and know that at the very least they met the compliance requirements to be a doctor...

It is a natural thing to seek out messages that confirm our preexisting beliefs or ideas about the world and other people. It is also fairly common to interpret unclear messages in a manner favorable to the beliefs or ideas we hold. However, just because it is natural or common does not mean it is also good or right. It is not—in fact, just the opposite. The tendency to seek out confirming messages is called confirmation bias. The trouble with confirmation bias is that it always risks replacing the truth with what we might want to hear. Any resulting action then risks being the wrong action when the truth is considered, while appearing to be the right action given the bias. It allows any judgment and subsequent action to appear and feel appropriate, while it may be entirely wrong given the underlying realities. Our preexisting beliefs or ideas can occur from a dizzying array of possibilities, can be subtle or blatant, and can be sexist or racist. They may resonate from surface rese...