How to set educational goals
Most goal setting I see in schools is ineffective and counterproductive.
The typical approach is to increase the most recent results by some round percentage such as 10 or 15 or 20%. But absent certain conditions, these “stretch” goals end up completely disconnected from reality.
I want to teach you three conditions that will lead to much more effective goal setting.
Stretch Goals are Counterproductive
Let’s look at why stretch goals aren’t helpful. I’m using real 3rd grade ELA state test scores from an education system to illustrate this point.
In Year 1, 54.9% of the 3rd graders scored proficient or higher. In Year 2, 63.8% of the 3rd graders scored proficient or higher.
Most leaders would celebrate because of the 8.9% increase in proficiency rates, and then set a stretch goal to increase scores next year by something like 20%.
The thinking goes that if we can increase our scores by nearly 9%, we can surely hit 20%!
But then in Year 3, only 61.2% of the students scored proficient or higher.
What stretch goal would you set next? Would you change the 20% goal because of the decreased rates in the most recent year?
Get a number in your head before reading any further.
Now, I’m going to give you the actual data for Years 1-9.
3rd Grade ELA State Proficiency Rates, Years 1-9
Now that we have nine years of test data, we can see that setting the stretch goal had no effect on outcomes. In all likelihood, the goal was not only ineffective but was likely counterproductive.
Year-after-year, this team didn’t come close to approaching the 20% annual increase. Some years the scores increased, and some years they decreased.
How demoralizing!
The good news is there’s a better method for understanding your data and setting goals.
3 Conditions of Healthy Goal Setting
The first step to take is to gather baseline data in the area you are interested in improving. This could be historical results or new data you need to collect.
Then, you can work to understand the following conditions:
Condition 1: The capability of the system under study
Condition 2: The variation of the system under study
Condition 3: The stability of the system under study
You can focus on any data that occurs across time. This could be state test scores, attendance rates, oral reading fluency rates, office referrals, etc.
For this example, I’ll continue using the 3rd grade ELA state test scores.
I’ve placed the proficiency rates from the table above into a process behavior chart, so that we can analyze the three conditions.
Process Behavior Chart: 3rd Grade ELA State Proficiency Rates
One thing that should jump off the page is how much more intuitive the analysis is by looking at the chart as compared to looking at the same data in the table.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at the three conditions, starting with system capability.
Condition 1: Understand system capability
The capability of this 3rd ELA system is defined by the chart.
The average rate for the nine years of data is 60.7% as illustrated by the green central line.
The red lines are called process limits and are set by plugging the nine years of data into a formula. We don’t get to choose where the limits are placed.
The lower limit is 44.9% and the upper limit is 76.5%. This tells us that the data is likely to bounce around the 60.7% average but could plausibly range between the limits.
This 3rd grade reading system is currently incapable of hitting the +20% stretch goal.
I know that because when I add 20 to 60.7%, the answer is beyond the upper limit of 76.5%.
Condition 2: Understand variation in the system
The data in the chart help us to understand the variation in the system.
The first thing to notice is that the blue data points are regularly bouncing above and below the green central line.
We have three points below the line, one point on the line, and five points above the line.
The year-to-year results increase, then decrease, then increase, then decrease, then increase slightly for three points in a row before decreasing in the most recent year.
Given the data we have so far, it is clear that this system is not going to increase from 60% proficiency rates to 80% proficiency rates in any given year.
Condition 3: Understand system stability
There are stable and unstable systems.
Stable systems are predictable. Unstable systems are unpredictable.
A system that is producing predictable results is performing as consistently as it is capable.
The 3rd grade ELA system is a stable, predictable system. There are no patterns in the data to suggest otherwise.
However, stability does not mean the same thing as acceptability. In the 3rd grade ELA system, only 3 in 5 students are reading at the Proficient level.
So, we have a stable, predictable system that is producing less-than-desirable outcomes.
By what method?
The +20% stretch goal is beyond the capability of the 3rd grade ELA system as it is currently designed.
This target is currently nothing more than a hope and a dream.
The all-important question is: By what method? By what method could the 3rd grade ELA system be improved?
More focus should be given to this important question than on setting a goal.
Some fundamental redesign of the 3rd grade ELA system will have to occur before there is any chance of improved outcomes.
Summary
If you’re a school leader and you’ve struggled to set logical goals, three big ideas from this article can help put you on the right track.
Big Idea 1: Setting stretch goals is ineffective and counterproductive.
Big Idea 2: Gather baseline data, and plot it on a time series chart.
Big Idea 3: Understand the three conditions prior to setting a goal.
After applying these big ideas to your goal-setting work, now your team will be ready to answer that most important question: By what method are we going to improve our system?
***
Whenever you’re ready, there are 3 ways I can help you:
Transformation requires a whole new way of thinking. Understanding variation in your most important data is a good place to start. In this free, 20-minute introductory course I will teach you a method that will allow you to react less and improve more, a win-win for educational leaders with limited time and resources.
Learn how to use improvement science rooted in the Deming philosophy to design simple experiments that lead to solutions that actually work in your schools, all without wasting time and money and burning out frontline educators. For education leaders who’ve heard of improvement science but aren’t sure where to begin, I can support you on this journey.
Win-Win is the improvement science text for education leaders. The aim of the book is to equip you with the knowledge and skills needed to use the System of Profound Knowledge, a powerful management philosophy, to lead and improve school systems.
***
John A. Dues is the Chief Learning Officer for United Schools, a nonprofit charter management organization that supports four public charter school campuses in Columbus, Ohio. He is also the author of the award-winning book Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools. Send feedback to jdues@unitedschools.org.