When measurement interferes with performance...

School systems have many reasons to measure student performance, and the No Child Left Behind legislation of a couple of decades ago provided even more. Measuring is one of the basic requirements for improvement: if I don't know how I did, I can't say whether it was better, worse, or the same as in the past. There's no doubt that measurement serves a critical role.

The process of learning, though, requires more than just pre- and post- measures. By definition, it requires a process.  Regardless of the subject matter involved, this process must occur somewhere in the brain, or at least in the peripheral nervous system. The point of this post: change in neuronal activity or function, not measurement, is at the heart of learning.

Can measurement support learning?  Absolutely:  done appropriately and judiciously, measurement can provide the confirmation that the learner is heading in the right direction.  Measurement can provide a clue as to how close the learner is to the desired achievement.  These are good things; but they are not learning.

What else can measurement do?  Unfortunately, measuring excessively, or in a threatening manner, can get in the way of learning processes. For example, setting up a process in which learners are striving for the "right answer" can be detrimental to real learning. Excessive measures, or measurement done for high stakes, are two ways to create this excessive focus on the answer, often to the exclusion of the learning. This is not a new idea.  Is there anyone older than 12 in this society who has not experienced both excessive and threatening forms of measurement? And in this society, we do not limit the consequences to stars and pats on the back.  The consequences for measures of personal performance that fall short of expectations are anything but pleasant.

Unfortunately, these uses of measurement can inhibit learning, and as a result, limit the ability to improve performance.

George H. W. Bush - The American Experience

I voted for Dukakis in 1988, like a good Democrat. I did not like Bush - apparently I never gave him a chance.

Perhaps I never knew that his term as head of the CIA in the 1970s was in response to a call for help to "clean up" the agency.

If he had not been a Republican, if he had not been sandwiched between the desolations of the Reagan administration and the economic success of the Clinton Administration, would we not have noticed how much he accomplished in a single term? Think about these actions:

• His development of relationships and maintaining phone contact with leaders in the US and all over the world
• His acceptance of the role of helping Reagan get elected, as distasteful as it was to him personally.
• The fall of the Berlin wall, due mostly to his relationship with Gorbachev
• The passage of the ADA (Americans with Disability Act)
• The success of Desert Shield, then Desert Storm, through careful development of coalitions, then the good judgment to stop at the Iraqi border.
• The budget deal - which may well have set up the Clinton Administration for its economic success (including the acceptance of a tax increase, despite our having "read his lips.")

I don't think I ever before appreciated how much we as Americans owe this man for his constant eye on what was most important for the country, and steady hand to make good long-term decisions - even (or perhaps especially) in situations in which he had to accept the blame for going back on his political promises (..."read my lips...").