In Defense of Measurement
Educational reform over the last decade has adopted the philosophies of business and manufacturing – the Total Quality Management (TQM)or Six Sigma approaches to continuous improvement. For years, education in the United States rejected such efforts as not applicable to teaching and learning.
Granted, there are problems with applying business management principles to education: 1) the question as to whether learning can be measured, and 2) the inevitable conflicts about whatshould be measured. Add to that a third, political consideration-- “who gets to decide what should be measured” -- and you can begin to understand why reforms have been slow to take root in education.
But we do know how to calculate the number of words a student can read in a minute, how to benchmark that number against same-age peers, and to re-assess periodically to monitor whether the student’s reading rate is improving at the same trajectory of other students. We know how to test whether students have mastered certain skills – whether they can solve a problem using mathematics, or construct a reasoned argument in support of a position.
At the same time, these measures cannot fully inform us about the student’s depth of understanding, or whether he/she can apply the skills for some useful purpose. They tell us little about students’ abilities to think critically or creatively, or whether they have developed the soft skills of discipline, hardwork, teamwork or concentration that make them employable.
Perhaps a better approach is to first accept the merits of measurement. While TQM may not be a perfect match for the field of education, we must acknowledge that defining success as being “whatever we say it is” only reinforces the notion that our profession is not interested in improvement. In an economy stretched for resources, this attitude toward the investment of tax dollars will no longer be tolerated.
Consider the seven basic principles of TQM: 1) quality can be managed; 2) processes, not people, are the problem; 3) don’t treat symptoms, but rather, look for the cure; 4) every employee is responsible for quality; 5) quality must be measurable; 6) quality improvements must be continuous; and 7) quality is a long-term investment. If we can agree that improving the quality of education is a common and continuous goal of Eastland, and that doing that means that we must measure and monitor our progress, we will have cleared a significant hurdle. We can then debate and define what will be the common outcomes of an Eastland education, and select the tools we will use to measure our progress toward them.