This is a book you will enjoy. Michael Edwards, Small Change:
Why Business Won’t Save the World.
Edwards demonstrates what the title says: that business methods
don’t work in the social sector. He says that the only meaningful
change comes about when civil society organizes from the grassroots
up to demand change. Edwards led the Ford Foundation’s program on
governance and civil society. His book analyzes efforts by
philanthro-capitalists to impose business principles and market
thinking on institutions of civil society, where they are
inappropriate. The philanthro-capitalists, he writes, develop
metrics for everything; it’s a means of control. They love
competition, and they love measurement. They don’t understand that
the values and qualities of civil society are different and are not
measurable. Civil society relies on participation; it changes the
world by activism and social commitment. Civil society teaches
tolerance, love, solidarity, sharing and cooperation. Its goal is
not the achievement of certain metrics, but social transformation.
Edwards points to the great social movements of our lifetime—the
civil rights movement, the women’s movement—as examples of civil
society at work, transforming society in ways that are fundamental.
These were bottom-up movements, not movements that were controlled
from the top by a master planner armed with data. We cannot look to
the captains of industry to lead social movements. They never have,
they never will. Their bottom line is profit, not the public
interest.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
A book and ideas that make perfect sense – yet those that fear socialism will object to the death. Socialism in the efforts for social good is appropriate. capitalism in the efforts for profit is appropriate. The two can exist harmoniously. And they do in the most peaceful, progressive, kind societies on this earth.
LikeLike
I’d like to point out that social justice and the social good are not at all the same as socialism. Both can and should exist and thrive in a properly regulated capitalist (not cronyist) society. Those in America who fear Socialism fear any word or idea that contains the root word social.
LikeLike
“. . . in the most peaceful, progressive, kind societies on this earth.” Does the current state of the USA fit that description? Methinks not!
Why be peaceful, progressive and kind when we are warlike, regressive and brutal?
LikeLike
Both movements that he describes funds from foundations – including Ford. In fact, Ford has been deeply involved in a variety of social change efforts.
Also What some people here describe as competition, others of us describe as expanding opportunity and democracy. One of the central principles of a democratic society is that people have the opportunity to make choices. One of the great debates is about what happens when those principles conflict – how much freedom of speech is acceptable, how much choice is acceptable?
But I think it is important to recognize Ford’s role in promoting changes that it likes. It was doing that long before Gates and other funders started doing it.
Finally – aren’t some values of a civil society measurable? Reduction in the number of people who are poor? Increase in the number of people who are employed? Increase in average age of people? Average wages? Disparity between wages of males/females, between people of different races? etc. etc. Measurement can be a part of a civil, democratic society.
LikeLike
But their metrics also don’t work for them. These methods provide an over-simplified, statistical security blanket which does not reveal the complexity of the human enterprise. Combine all the unmeasurable mis-steps with the massive deregulation of the last thirty years and you get…………..well, we are looking at it aren’t we.
LikeLike
I’ve been enjoying “What Money Can’t Buy” by Michael Sandel. Similar idea.
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
Kathy, I’m not sure if yo are responding to me. But in response to what you wrote, I agree that having metrics is not enough.
On the other hand, if you don’t have metrics, you don’t know if you are making progress – whether it is unemployment, average wage, percentage of low income people, etc. etc. It’s also possible to mis-use metrics. But without metrics, it is not possible to be clear about how what, where and how much progress is being made.
LikeLike
“But without metrics, it is not possible to be clear about how what, where and how much progress is being made.”
It’s this kind of thinking that has brought us to today’s high-stakes testing calamity. All things human cannot and should not be reduced to numbers. Much of what we have learned about our world has been through qualitative research, such as Jane Goodall’s studies of chimps. However, qualitative analysis has been greatly undervalued and virtually shut out of education today, including teacher’s systematic observations and student portfolios.
Quantitative research is just one method of analyzing data and it is not always the most appropriate tool. It should be applied judiciously in the social sciences and cautiously in education, not dominate the field to the exclusion of all else. Every human being is unique and idiosyncratic, and statistically pigeon holing students does not provide a full, accurate picture of each child’s personal life, motivations, interests, strengths, needs and progress.
LikeLike
Veteran Educator:
Joe explicitly said that measures are not sufficient. How can you be clear about “what, where and how much progress is being made”?
Arguments against metrics are straw man arguments. Your own last two paragraphs essentially undermine your initial assertion. I know of no serious analyst who doubts the value of qualitative research. It always precedes quantification – except in the case of dubious dustbowl empiricism.
I have not read Michael Edwards’ book yet, but I strongly suspect that the argument against management principles and metrics when dealing with social issues are also largely straw man arguments. The two examples raised above of women’s rights and civil rights were largely binary notions initially. However, through time they quickly adopt metrics that allow for the determination of progress: Pay discrimination metrics, hiring ratios, promotion ratios, etc. Nobody who has actually run a business – I did for 25 years – believes that metrics tell the whole story: They are indicative not determinative.
LikeLike
This should not be an argument between quantitative and qualitative data. When we talk in obvious absolutes, the arguments become senseless. Let us agree that there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of each kind of data. Most educators who have been exposed to the current use of testing, probably would agree that the current heavy reliance on quantitative data, which has led to serious validity concerns from reputable sources, is detrimental to teaching and learning.
LikeLike
William Knaak
I like your endorsement of Michael Edwards book, “Small Change.” Market thinking has not worked and cannot be expected to work in teaching hard-to-educate children. In my book, “Teach the Best and Stomp the Rest” I deal with how “gross misunderstanding of private market” gets in the way of future improvement of educational, economic and ecologic infrastructure. (pp. 543-552)
LikeLike
Somewhat reated is an essay in today’s Truthdig. Keep in mind that the “bureaucrats” really hold the roles of managers in a business, as explained so well by Raymond Callahan over 50 years ago, who noted how the move of the original “reformers” to organize the schools along the managerial lines of business gutted the professionalism of teaching and destroyed the capacity of schools to educate students.
LikeLike