There is nothing wrong with governments asking for evidence of performance and value added: they are making huge investments in education. The question is: "how do we best offer public assurance for our education system"?
The dominant current answer is in part answered by the observations above about datafication. But the deeper answer relates to the emergence of new public management (NPM) as the basis for the work of the public service. Developed as a result of the third way movement, spawned by Anthony Giddens (now Lord Giddens)[6] and Sir Anthony Barber's "deliverology"[7]. Their work built strongly on previous work in the US by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler[8]. For key features of NPM, please see appendix.
The result has been the demoralization of teachers and the de-professionalization of the teaching profession, no real improvement in performance and a faster growth of management versus teaching positions. At Canadian universities, academic rank salaries as a percentage of total expenditures have steadily declined from 34% in 1973 to 23% in 2016 (CAUBO 2018:22) - spending on administration and general funds increased by 228% during the same period. The predominant staff for teaching at universities in North America are "gig" workers rather than tenured or tenure track teaching staff. The academy is under siege in many respects as neoliberal and accountability-driven culture encloses the parameters of what constitutes academic excellence and research and evidence informed policy making[9].
Students are economic units and schools, colleges and universities are cost centres which need to demonstrate the value they add to learning[10]. Some systems now calculate value added per teacher to learning on a periodic basis[11], reporting the results to parents (e.g. in Los Angeles[12]). Others use proxies - how quickly someone who finishes school or higher education secures a job, income within three years etc. - for looking at the economic benefit of an "investment" in education. Many systems are developing other performance indicators and undertaking site reviews and systematic and rigorous performance reviews and setting performance targets. So much so, in fact, that many teachers (especially in the UK[13] and Ontario[14]) feel bullied and bruised.
Drawing on workplace research from nursing, a ground-breaking study on "moral distress" amongst 180 teachers illustrated the intersection of work intensification and inadequate supports for students with special needs[15]. One of the key findings of the study was the growing gap teachers perceived between the policy pronouncements supporting equity of governments and organizations such as the OECD, while learning conditions and supports for students continue to decline.
This preoccupation with performance, metrics, costs and efficiency is also creating what is known as moral distress for teachers and school-based leaders: they know just what is needed in relation to a student's needs, but feel unable or seriously constrained by costs, optics or politics. Numerous studies over recent years have documented the unsustainable expectations and role confusion experienced by school principals [16,17].
Suggested Reading: