In his recent New York Times Op-Ed, R. Barker Bausell posits a new way to "assess teachers" -- the amount of time a teacher spends on delivering relevant instruction.  The metric is perfectly reasonable; more relevant instruction results in more learning.  But Bausell glosses over a crucial piece of the measurement puzzle: how the data is used.

Every offense in football shares the same mission: score points. The best way to score points is the touchdown (big news, I know). To do this, teams utilize a combination of players with different skill sets suited to a number of different roles. Quarterbacks take the ball and put it in the hands of running backs and wide receivers who elude would-be tacklers as they advance the ball downfield. These "skill position" players score the touchdowns and get the accompanying glory. Every fall, millions of fantasy football owners across the country obsess over touchdowns and the skill position players who score them. But that's only half of the story.  

Bill Tucker's Commentary in EdWeek shares important lessons from the move to electronic medical records in the health care industry. Of particular note, Tucker is clear, as many of us have found, that the technology and mere availability of data are necessary, but not sufficient to create change.

In the national conversation about United States’ education system and student academic performance, the U.S.’s standing on standardizing tests in core subjects relative to other industrialized countries seems to be a core evidence point highlighting our struggles.  But as with most measurement efforts, key performance indicators often raise more questions than they answer.  This is a good thing.  These questions shouldn’t only give us pause when considering the meaning of the performance itself, but also provide an opportunity to reflect on our definition of success.

At last week’s sySTEMnow Conference in Milwaukee, a convening of math and science educators and the businesses funding their efforts, I was a panelist for a session titled The ROI for STEM Outreach Efforts: Quantifying Corporate Social Responsibility. Several conferences have begun hosting sessions like this to help employees in CSR departments measure the business impact of their corporate philanthropy and volunteerism.  

A recently released report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute does an excellent job summarizing the confusion and debate regarding graduation rates as well as thoroughly describing the current set of metrics. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether graduation rate is the right metric to indicate preparedness for post-high school success, it's imperative that there is clarity in the definiton of any metric used so widely. 

I have had the opportunity to recently engage with a number of staff from school district central offices and education foundations about the question in the title – who owns student outcomes? Unfortunately the answer I have often received is focused on why a particular individual, department, office or organization cannot, in fact, be held accountable for student outcomes.

In our work with organizations in the Education sector, stakeholders almost always describe their need for more "data".  However, as they expound on their challenges, it becomes clear that their interest is not in obtaining more data.  In fact, they're often swimming in data.  What schools truly want and need is more information.   

A June 4th article in the New York Times highlights a new charter school in New York City which is purposefully understaffed.  The philosophy behind The Equity Project is simple, "teacher quality is the most important factor in acheiving educational equity for low income students."