Complexity Conceals Flaws in Systems of All Kinds

ISSUE 74 | NOVEMBER 20, 2006

[This free e-mail newsletter about school information, accountability and the public is provided by School Wise Press. To add a colleague's name to the distribution, please send us their names and e-mail addresses to: stever@schoolwisepress.com. If you'd rather not receive this, simply notify us by phone at (415) 337-7971, or by e-mail, including the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line of your message.]

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent  It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction."      — E.F. Schumacker

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."      — Leonardo DaVinci

This owl's eyes are crossed. I have been reading the small print in the 68-page technical manual for determining which schools land in Program Improvement (PI), and it is baroque in its complexity. This puzzled owl must ask, "Does it need to be this complicated?" Like the ornate architectural style of the French in the 1600s and 1700s, it seems like excessive decoration.

Complexity abounds in school accountability. For fun, and to prove my point, I have compiled my own Owl Index of artifacts from California's educational system. (Thanks goes to the great magazine editor Lewis Lapham of HARPERS for use of his famous format.)

		THE OWL INDEX
2,200		The number of data points in California's School Accountability Report Card
6 to 24		The number of data points on an elementary student's report card
1		The number of data points in a restaurant health inspector's evaluation
745		The number of education bills introduced in the California Legislature in the last session
253		The number of education bills in U.S. Congress, 109th session
760		Number of pages in the Commission on Mandates manual
20		Number of pages in the U.S. Constitution
7		Number of ways to code school financial data in the Standardized Accounting Code System (SACS)
3		Number of dimensions to nonprofit fund accounting

This owl suspects that complexity serves a purpose. Complexity in Ptolemy's theories of an earth-centered universe disguised weaknesses in his science The improved observations of the rotation of the planets required increasing numbers of exceptions, idiosyncracies, and special rules. The complex models representing Ptolemy's geocentric universe were vastly more complicated than the solar-centric model of Copernicus and later, Galileo. Copernicus's theories explained more simply the reason why the planets appeared to move so irregularly. His answer: a change in perspective, with the earth revolving around the sun. The simplicity of his explanation, which allowed for the removal of complicated epicycles and their replacement by a series of concentric circles, was partial evidence of its truth. The other evidence was that it matched astronomers' observations with greater precision than Ptolemy's.

Those of us living with California's accountability system remain in the Ptolemaic world, fussing with the fine print of accountability workbooks, tinkering with oddities like "safe harbor" and HOUSSE exceptions in determining whether a teacher is "highly qualified."

The complexity of these rules exists, this owl believes, to compensate for two missing factors. The first factor would measure and track the year-to-year progress of each and every student. The second factor would link this to the identify the teacher who teaches each student. The elements that would make this possible are a student identifier and a teacher identifier.

Simplicity would be the result if each student's growth each year were the basis for evaluating schools. If you want to estimate how effectively teachers and schools advance their students' knowledge year to year, you cannot do so without these two factors. Tennessee has both, and as a result, they have been able to see the relative effectiveness of teachers and schools since 1992. They publish the gain scores of schools in their newspapers alongside test scores, and citizens "get it." Principals and district leaders have the responsibility of taking a minimum of three years of teacher effectiveness data, and using it wisely. This data, of course, is not published, but shared with teachers themselves, all for the right cause -- improving teaching and learning.

After years of development, a California student identifier system (CSIS) is about to "go live." And thanks to the legislative initiative of EdVoice, a teacher identifier system has now become law. As soon as this system is rolling, California will at last have the capacity to see clearly. Whether we have the courage and political will to do so, however, remains to be seen.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ever practical, this owl has five suggestions for those leaders who want to act now to simplify accountability measures for their communities. Two benefits your district will enjoy: lower costs of communicating with your public, and stronger bonds of trust with your parents and staff. Give this owl a hoot if they improve your accountability practices.

1. Use your own system of student and teacher identifiers to track the gain score of each student, year to year, and measure the impact of teachers.  You don't need to wait until California's higher-ups have everything in place for CSIS. You can start now. Bill Sanders, whose system of value-added assessment guides the accountability practices in Tennessee, did his first study of Chattanooga schools with nothing more than three grad students and a personal computer.

2. Print just a summary of your parent handbook for distribution, but publish the full-length version on the Web.  Hospitals do it this way. Insurance companies do the same. The public will be appreciative of your efforts to digest, condense, and summarize the key factors they need to know the most. But they will also expect you to make the full version available online. (And by the way, parent handbooks should not read like legalese.)

3. Print a summary of your SARC for distribution to all parents and staff. The same logic applies. If you distill the mountain of data down to what matters most, and make the rest available online, you'll enjoy lower SARC costs, and higher praise from your public. They expect you to guide them, showing them what's most important. Take advantage of the opportunity. Combining summary with full-length reporting is even recommended in the federal guidelines for accountability reporting (Sept. 2003).

4. Simplify your complaint process. Despite the recent revisions to the Uniform Complaint Procedure, most districts have at least three people in between the parent with a problem and the supe. You can.reduce that to one. The Categorial Program Monitoring division reports more violations of UCP than any other category. More modern-minded districts like San Diego USD and Poway USD have created an Ombudsman Office, headed by a director who often reports directly to the cabinet or superintendent. This system lets everyone know that complaints, like pain, are important signals well worth heeding.

5. Flatten out your bureaucracy.  Simplifying an organizational structure brings everyone closer to the customer.  Make it easier for the public to contact you, and you'll be rewarded with helpful information from them.

REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Education, "Report Cards, Title I, Part A: Non-Regulatory Guidance (Sept. 2003)." See Section A-2. [MS Word document]

William Sanders, the grand-daddy of value-added assessment, the man whose methods guide Tennessee.

"Teachers, Teachers, Teachers." By William Sanders. Blueprint Magazine, September 1, 1999.

The general index page for the California Education Code.

Look up a bill in the California legislature.

San Diego Unified School District's ombudsman's office for special education.

The Wikipedia entry on Ptolemy's geocentric universe, and the entry on Copernicus.

OWL ARCHIVE | BACK TO NEWSLETTER REGISTRATION PAGE