The Numbers We Need

Abstract

Successful organizations monitor their operations extensively and intensively. UPS and FedEx know where every package is in transit. Dell is famous for running an extremely tight supply chain, pushing the cost of holding inventory onto its suppliers by ordering only what it needs when it needs it. Baseball teams employ sophisticated statistical analyses in making personnel decisions. Yet, few school districts understand their true costs of recruiting a new teacher. Few can determine whether one professional developer is more cost-effective than another. Few can reliably assess the efficacy of particular programs or staff. One consequence is that school systems focus single-mindedly on the few metrics they do have--test scores and expenditures. Even districts that tout themselves as driven often mean only that they can break out test scores by teacher, subject, or student population. Districts need reliable measures that illuminate performance in human resources, procurement, data management, and other areas. Tracking the appropriate indicators can enable leaders to revolutionize how schools work, how they support educators, and how they spend dollars. ACHIEVEMENT DATA ISN'T ENOUGH Over the past 10 years, there has been a concerted push to hold schools accountable for results by looking principally at student achievement data. Districts have been pushed to collect more of this data than ever before. Many suggest we're on the verge of a management revolution in using data to drive achievement. However, while the data most useful to parents and policy makers are often simple data on assessment results and graduation rates, the key data for district officials are measurements that shed light on why those results look like they do and what might be done about them. Relying too much on achievement measures presents some fundamental problems. For one, they're often irrelevant to managing. Does it really make sense to hold a payroll processor responsible for reading results? Wouldn't we rather hold her responsible for the speed and accuracy of her work? By focusing so relentlessly on student achievement, especially in just a few domains, many employees (including teachers in untested subjects) are either excused from results-driven accountability or held accountable for things over which they have little control. Second, it's easy to give short shrift to the operations, hiring, and financial practices that support schools. We scarcely notice them until something goes awry. However, focusing on instructional leadership is difficult when the hiring process assigns instructors to schools with little time to prepare, when texts and supplies aren't delivered, or when teachers must wait weeks or months for assessment results. Finally, student achievement data alone will not allow organizations to diagnose problems and manage improvement. If math scores are disappointing, why is that? Is professional development the problem? Is hiring? It's as if a CEO's management dashboard consisted of one item--the stock price. In fact, given the state of most student achievement data systems, the better analogy is to last year's stock price. Education leaders should take a page from the approach that has reshaped how private and public sector firms have approached data and management. Developed in the early 1990s by Robert Kaplan and David Norton, the balanced scorecard provides a quick but comprehensive view of performance. It includes standard financial metrics that reflect past and current success but, crucially, complements these with metrics on customer satisfaction, internal processes, and the organization's learning and innovation capabilities. Relying solely on financial metrics too often led firms to sacrifice long-term viability in favor of short-term gains. Well-designed balanced scorecards develop a clear link between operational metrics and the bottom line. …