Education Opinion

Overconfidence in the Value of Measurement

By Walt Gardner — March 23, 2011 3 min read

If there’s one thing that defines today’s accountability movement in education, it’s the sanctity of measurement. Reformers relentlessly demand hard data that students are learning. Without objective evidence, they claim that schools will never improve.

They point to business as a model. But despite what is widely assumed, numbers are rarely the sole consideration in evaluating employees in the private sector. When they are, they result in collateral damage in the form of depersonalization throughout the ranks and a false sense of assurance in the executive suite.

The latest to address the issue was Samuel Culbert, professor of management at the UCLA Anderson School. His op-ed in The New York Times on Mar. 1 argued that performance reviews “corrupt the system by getting employees to focus on pleasing the boss, rather than on achieving desired results” (“Why Your Boss Is Wrong About You”). In short, “nothing could be less fair.”

For teachers facing increasing pressure to boost test scores or face possible dismissal, the implications are especially timely. New York State serves as a case study. On Mar. 1, Gov. Andrew Cuomo introduced a compromise plan that would allow merit to be considered instead of only seniority. His proposal was in response to criticism about using LIFO (last in, first out) as the basis for layoffs. (New York is one of 14 states that makes it illegal to consider anything except a teacher’s length of service in making layoff decisions.)

In the absence of length of service, which is totally objective, what would substitute in determining layoffs? If only measurable outcomes were considered, then teachers would overlook non-cognitive results, which are every bit as important in education, and would be given no credit for serendipity, which can yield valuable results.

The Washington Post published a story that illustrates these perils (“Evaluation of D.C. teachers is a delicate conversation,” Mar. 17). The District of Columbia uses a system of teacher evaluation known as IMPACT, which contains nine standards. The teacher in question was penalized for not strictly adhering to the objective for the day’s lesson. Apparently, IMPACT does not take into account a teacher’s sensitivity to cues that arise spontaneously.

Moreover, there is the issue of whether it’s better to motivate groups, rather than individuals, in order to get the best overall results. In a working paper issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research, researchers found that group incentive pay and hourly pay play a greater role in motivating workers in manufacturing settings than individual incentive pay (“Social Science Palooza II,” New York Times, Mar. 17).

This conclusion has particular relevance to today’s debate in education over identifying effective teachers. That’s because teaching by its very nature is a collaborative profession. Teachers openly share ideas in department meetings and in faculty lounges. They do so because they are all working toward a common goal. Those teachers who do not do their job well in one grade force other teachers to pick up their load.

In an essay published in Education Week, Andrea Gabor, chair of business journalism at Baruch College, CUNY, put the issue this way: “Individualized pay incentives also run counter to the logic of a systems approach to organizations” (“Why Pay Incentives Are Destined to Fail,” Sept. 22, 2010). Teachers are “interlinked actors” who learn from each other and from outside experts.

Numerical goals have their place in schools. But they don’t deserve to be elevated to the throne in making decisions. That’s the mistake reformers make time and again.

The opinions expressed in Walt Gardner’s Reality Check are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Let us know what you think!

We’re looking for feedback on our new site to make sure we continue to provide you the best experience.


This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Future of Work Webinar
Digital Literacy Strategies to Promote Equity
Our new world has only increased our students’ dependence on technology. This makes digital literacy no longer a “nice to have” but a “need to have.” How do we ensure that every student can navigate
Content provided by Learning.com
Mathematics Online Summit Teaching Math in a Pandemic
Attend this online summit to ask questions about how COVID-19 has affected achievement, instruction, assessment, and engagement in math.
School & District Management Webinar Examining the Evidence: Catching Kids Up at a Distance
As districts, schools, and families navigate a new normal following the abrupt end of in-person schooling this spring, students’ learning opportunities vary enormously across the nation. Access to devices and broadband internet and a secure

EdWeek Top School Jobs

7796 - Director of EAL (K-12) - August '21
Dubai, UAE
GEMS Education
Great Oaks AmeriCorps Fellow August 2021 - June 2022
New York City, New York (US)
Great Oaks Charter Schools
Great Oaks AmeriCorps Fellow August 2021 - June 2022
New York City, New York (US)
Great Oaks Charter Schools

Read Next

Education Obituary In Memory of Michele Molnar, EdWeek Market Brief Writer and Editor
EdWeek Market Brief Associate Editor Michele Molnar, who was instrumental in launching the publication, succumbed to cancer.
5 min read
Education Briefly Stated Briefly Stated: December 9, 2020
Here's a look at some recent Education Week articles you may have missed.
8 min read
Education Briefly Stated Briefly Stated: Stories You May Have Missed
A collection of articles from the previous week that you may have missed.
8 min read
Education Briefly Stated Briefly Stated: Stories You May Have Missed
A collection of stories from the previous week that you may have missed.
8 min read