Testing is complicated and essential, which
is to say as long as we’re paying for it
somebody is going to want to know if it works.
I think the question is always it’s like
the uncertainty principle in physics, the
act of measuring something can change it and
is the change worthwhile and/or is the measurement
so narrow that it doesn’t tell us anything
that we need to know?
And so, what I’ve been and what I think
a lot of people are considering now is how
do we not throw out the baby with the bathwater
when we talk about measuring the improvement,
hopefully constant improvement, of our kids
of all types and in all locations while they’re
in school?
So, in thinking about a future where measurement
still matters the balance we’re trying to
strike is can you add and subtract?
Do you know how to read well?
Which is so critical, if you’re not reading
well by the time you’re in the fourth grade
you stand less than a ten percent chance of
ever reading well.
I can’t think of a more hostile prison than
illiteracy that too many of our people of
all races, incomes and places are consigned
to.
So, how do we make sure we got those two things
right while providing a more holistic set
of indicators that parents care about a lot?
Safety.
Does my kid feel cared for?
Do they feel respected and challenged?
That’s a much softer and more difficult
thing to measure, but it’s clear that it’s
very important.
And then at the far edge of this discussion
is not two variables, you take reading and
math, and not reading and math plus some other
things that people value, but 50 indicators
that covers so many things that they are meaningless,
which is like not the place that I think we
want to be.
I’m not a psychometrician, I don’t write
reading tests but I’m really happy that
I can read and I think most people that can
pretty much are and we’re trying to engage
in a process that values all of this now so
that we can still figure out whether or not
our kids got the message.
Now, the measurement thing is also important.
Measurement is also important for two different
reasons: one is that it is good to know whether
or not anything happened, but knowing what
happened doesn’t get you much leverage to
change culture.
So, measurement is very close to the fulcrum
of how you make policy or cultural change,
which means you can lean on it a lot and it
might not changed much.
Social change, like true transformations in
how we think about who we are as a people,
as a nation and what our ideas should be is
much harder to do, but when it flips everything
flips.
So, you can look at a ton of different instances
of this in the last decade, marriage equality
is a great example.
Like I can remember Barack Obama saying on
the campaign trail that marriage was between
a man and a woman and then five years later
love is love.
You couldn’t do that leaning on measurement
very close to the fulcrum.
You could do that in the hearts and minds
of that people changed in a way that made
something big and important like fairness
acceptable.
And our desire to measure the future has to
embrace that.
It’s got to embrace the difference in schooling
necessary to get people to accept that.
It’s got to embrace the different paths
that people take to success.
Like some people are really good at math and
really good at tests and they like that world.
Some people are not good at those things and
they hate that world.
How do we respect both of those things in
a way that still produces literate numerate
children who can take their place in our society
and our democracy?
These are huge open questions right now.
I think we thought we had the answers to a
lot of these things.
I think we did have the answers to some of
them.
I think figuring out what the answers to those
questions are is the essential work of the
next ten or 15 years.
