Measuring What Matters: My Reflection working with Education System

"What you measure is what you get."

This seemingly simple, profound statement captures a critical reality in education reform. As we are looking toward changing the education system for the better in India, so too are we really having to be very clear about what we choose to measure and how those measurements drive change.

Let me share one of my personal experiences. I have been working at length with the State Project Director in one of the UTs to devise a strategic roadmap toward the rollout of the NIPUN Bharat program. The idea is to bring about this paradigm shift in the measurement of learning competency rather than content knowledge that has been practised all these years in our examinations.?

Our approach was two-fold:

We shifted the teacher training focus from delivering lessons to developing competency in the foundational language and mathematics. We also, importantly, planned for a shift in the pattern of examinations—from content-based to competency-based exams.

The approach was to provide new skills to teachers but, more importantly, to refocus the whole system on competency development. By changing what we measured—from rote learning to applied competencies—we thought that would push teachers to do away with conventional practices. For instance, in language, shifting more to listening and speaking in the early years before starting reading and writing; and in mathematics, getting children to explain their answers and talk more about the problems. This was even communicated to the inspecting officers who, during their school visits can ask questions (to teachers) like what is children's level in listening comprehension? Are they able to understand simple instructions in English and respond in their own language? Are they explaining their answers after solving maths problems? However, there was a twist in the tale.

The intended changes in the examination patterns were not made due to some last-minute changes in the system. The examination committee, consisting of a set of teachers, framed question papers with the same old pattern where more importance was given to 'recalling' rather than 'understanding' and 'application'. This change has made a huge difference in the whole program. The teachers went back to the old traditional ways of teaching and began drilling the students to perform well in the examinations, which only tested knowledge in content. It was further added that schools with low scores would be questioned. With such a scenario, despite all our efforts to shift towards competency-based learning, the persistence of traditional examination patterns undermined our goals effectively.

And this is clearly due to the assessments. In one such interaction, the teachers said that we are bound to plan our teaching based on the pattern of the examinations. What was clear by then was that teachers were responding to the metrics by which they and their students would be judged. This brings back to our quote - What you measure is what you get. While this was not intended, you must have got my point here. This setback illustrates a critical education reform lesson: While changing what we measure is part of the equation, it is only half the battle. In effect, we have to take up the fight of ensuring everything else in the system is aligned to our goals. If all these steps had been followed in this instance, we would be better placed to avert this outcome:

• Greater Stakeholder Involvement: We should have involved the Examination Committee from the very start. Had we included them earlier when we began to design this new approach, we would have earned their buy-in.
• Gradual Transition: Maybe we did this too quickly. Had we done this on a gradual basis, where some of the competency-based questions were introduced alongside traditional ones in perhaps one-third of the overall question, it may have made this transition easier on both teachers and students.

Teacher empowerment: We could have been there to assist teachers in writing competency-based assessments. This would have generated a feeling of confidence and competence in this new approach.

Communication strategy: We should send a clear message constantly to all, such as parents and students, about the need for competency-based learning.

What was important was that accountability of schools and teachers should have been based on competency development, not test scores.

These reflections bring to mind the insights that Arun Maira has provided in his book "Transforming Systems". According to Maira, the basic ingredient in driving change in any system is systems thinking. It means attending to all the interconnected parts of a system, not parts alone.

In our case, the priorities were given to teacher training and examination changes but overlooked the critical role of the examination committee. We failed to see that the education system is a holistic complex web of stakeholders and deep-rooted practices.

Maira also emphatically underscores the role of inclusive processes in bringing about change. Not engaging all the stakeholders right from the beginning has only robbed this reform process of a share of the vision and collective ownership.

This experience has taught me the vital importance of inclusive, system-wide thinking in education reform.

I would love to hear your thoughts on these two questions:

• What steps could we have taken to avoid the setback in implementing competency-based assessments?
• How can we navigate the ever-evolving and ambiguous education system to bring about lasting results in student learning?