Measuring What Matters
In modern education, particularly within schools, the obsession with measurement is often mistaken for progress. Performance contracts, KPIs, scorecards–we track time, resources, and output as if the most meaningful parts of school life can be reduced to a spreadsheet. But teachers and school leaders know otherwise: the real value of education rarely fits inside a metric.
We don’t oppose accountability. We oppose mistaking numbers for meaning. The truth is, measurement affects what we value. Welfare becomes efficiency. Education becomes a set of plans. The school becomes a delivery unit. And before long, we’re no longer improving learning–we’re just improving the reports.
"Measurements shape what we see, what we do, and what we consider valuable. Welfare becomes efficiency. Education becomes student plans."
Schools are not factories. They are institutions of complexity, judgment, and trust. Yet public policy often treats them as predictable systems. Goals are set at the top, systems built to track them, and teachers asked to perform accordingly. What’s measurable is prioritized. What’s meaningful is sidelined.
Nowhere is this distortion clearer than in how schools manage curriculum and performance. Centralized learning objectives become mandatory. Standardized tests drive decisions. Informal learning moments–where students connect, discover, reflect–are squeezed out. The school’s broader role in shaping democratic citizens, critical thinkers, and resilient communities is diminished.
We become what we measure. And schools forget what they are for.
This challenge is the central theme in Kresten Schultz Jørgensen’s 2021 book Gør det Godt, which explores how meaningful work–particularly in education and welfare–demands trust over targets and professional judgment over rigid compliance. His argument is clear: systems that over-prioritize measurement risk undermining the very quality they claim to secure.
Three Common Misconceptions About Measurement:
- Measurements help us focus on what matters. – In reality, they often shift focus away from professional judgment and contextual learning.
- Measurements bring stability. – They don’t. Especially in complex, evolving environments like schools.
- Everything can be measured. – It can’t. And trying flattens the school’s deeper purpose.
What’s the alternative? Strategic direction paired with professional self-leadership.
Self-leadership isn’t unstructured freedom. It’s the responsibility to act with judgment and purpose inside a shared institutional framework. In schools, this means trusting teachers to lead learning–supported by values, not constrained by dashboards.
"Self-leadership is not about freedom to do anything. It is the space–and the duty–to act within values and direction."
We can still use data. But data should inform, not control. Good data practice supports learning and dialogue. It gives professionals feedback without undermining their expertise.
Schools are special places. They are not built to maximize efficiency. They exist to create meaning, build capability, and cultivate curiosity. Let’s stop managing schools for measurement’s sake. And start leading them as the vital institutions they are.