Click here to view this press release as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

Media inquiries: Véronique Rodman
202.862.4870 (vrodman@aei.org)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAY 13, 2009

Increased interest in student achievement data and graduation rates is a good step forward. But too often, phrases such as "data-driven decision-making" and "research-based practice" morph into convenient buzzwords that stand in for useful data and careful thought. In a new white paper, "Balanced Scorecards and Management Data," published by Harvard University's Center for Education Policy Research, Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy studies at AEI, and Jon Fullerton, senior practice expert in McKinsey & Company's social-sector office, hone in on the crucial data we are not collecting--and why these missing metrics are critical to meaningful reform.

Hess and Fullerton note that education leaders have paid scant attention to the importance of collecting basic management data that are the backbone of any well-run organization and that are crucial to the support of educators--metrics on the effectiveness of operations, procurement systems, human resources practices, and financial processes. Only collecting student achievement data, according to Hess, "illustrate[s] how students are faring but do[es] not enable an organization to diagnose problems or manage improvement. It is as if a CEO's management [toolkit] consisted of only one item--the company stock's price."

Tracking the appropriate indicators can empower education leaders to revolutionize how schools work, to understand how to support educators, and to determine how to spend dollars. With this in mind, Hess and Fullerton single out six kinds of data that should be collected, five barriers that have typically limited the collection of such data, and five steps necessary to go forward.

Among their key findings:

The Numbers We Need: Six Types of Data School Systems Should Be Tracking

1. Robust student outcome assessments. Tracking student outcomes at the individual student and classroom level—beyond state assessments.
   
2. Counting people and things. Keeping track of the number of students, teachers, facilities, and district assets; where they are located; and the transfer of assets between locations.
3. Finance. A management-friendly system for tracking expenditures that links dollars, actual employee time, activities, and students with programs.
4. Instructional and curricular operations. Tracking and matching instructional and curricular services to program efficacy and efficiency.
5. Human capital operations. Establishing a system that can monitor personnel; gauge performance; and efficiently manage hiring, transfer, benefits, employee concerns, and terminations.
6. Business practices. Performance data on processes and operations, including information technology, data management, and maintenance.
   

Reasons Why These Data Have Not Been Collected

1. School systems do not reward educational leaders for pursuing new efficiencies or savings, redeploying resources, or coming up with innovative delivery mechanisms for school services.
2. Public education has underinvested in its information technology infrastructure for years.
3. While "data-driven instruction" has become a popular buzzword, the cultures of school districts are not data-driven.
4. Districts have done a poor job of developing and rewarding the behaviors and skills required to collect, analyze, and report basic operational and management data.
5. The current focus on "data-driven decision-making" has districts and schools starting at what may be the most challenging entry point: the complex and nebulous metrics of pupil achievement and school performance.
   

What Is Needed

1. Create opportunities and change incentives. There is little incentive for school systems to collect the data needed to improve school management.
2. Get started. Much of the data needed to evaluate school performance effectively already exists; it is most likely not in an accessible, easy-to-read, automated format.
3. Got money? Got talent? Any serious move toward improving management performance will require additional research and analytic capacity. District leaders aspiring to assemble the appropriate data to assess management performance must first find those with the training and skill to provide useful analysis.
4. State and federal governments have roles to play, too. States influence districts' operational, financial, and student reporting requirements. To readily compare districts' costs and performance, states should design reporting requirements to capture financial data in a managerially useful way. States can facilitate this process by inviting interested school systems to meet regularly, share metrics, compare data, and benchmark their processes and results.
5. Support management change. Advocacy groups, business leaders, local media, mayors, and even governors can give district managers the political cover and support they need to improve management performance.
   

Frederick M. Hess is a resident scholar and director of education policy studies at AEI. A former high school teacher and university professor, he is an executive editor of Education Next and a research associate at Harvard University's Program on Education Policy and Governance. His work has appeared in numerous academic and popular publications, and his many books include Tough Love for Schools, Common Sense School Reform, and Spinning Wheels.

Jon Fullerton is the executive director of the Center for Education Policy Research at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and senior practice expert in the McKinsey & Company social-sector office. Before joining Harvard, he was the director of budget and financial policy for the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and vice president for strategy, evaluation, research, and policy at the Urban Education Partnership in Los Angeles.

###