I was struck by this excerpt from a letter from George Mason economist Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek to the Chairman of Fairfax County School Systems:
"Alternatively, if the problem with merit pay is that measuring teacher
performance is simply too difficult, then we can conclude that Fairfax
teachers now are as likely to be doing a truly lousy job at educating
children as they are to be doing an excellent job at this task.
(Indeed, if performance can’t be monitored, then chances are the
teachers are doing a lousy job. After all, why put forth effort if
worthwhile results of your effort – or lack thereof – are undetectable?)"
performance is simply too difficult, then we can conclude that Fairfax
teachers now are as likely to be doing a truly lousy job at educating
children as they are to be doing an excellent job at this task.
(Indeed, if performance can’t be monitored, then chances are the
teachers are doing a lousy job. After all, why put forth effort if
worthwhile results of your effort – or lack thereof – are undetectable?)"
It made me wonder about our ability to measure security professionals performance in a similar vein.
The problem with merit pay for teachers is one of determining by what criteria it is fair to measure all teachers on in relation to merit/performance.
To the unwashed masses, a reasonable standard measure of teacher ‘competence’ would be to determine the numbers of students under a teachers tutelage who pass the exam in that teachers subject and at what level.
At a base level, this might seem reasonable on the basis that if the students don’t pass their exams in that subject then the teacher can’t be much good.
This type of criteria of course fails to take into account all the other ‘real world’ issues which surround students and which teachers have to deal with. To give a simple example, at what level of knowledge/competence/experience did the students start the course at? For those with significant experience/knowledge etc it will of course be easier for them to pass the exams then it will be for those students who have significant difficulties – i.e. no previous experience or perhaps other difficulties which affect their learning – e.g. medical conditions, behaviourial issues and so forth.
For teachers much of these problems are outside of their control and it is thus unfair to base their ‘performance’ on these factors.
In the UK, secondary schools (what in the US would be termed ‘high schools’) were (and still largely are) rated on the basis of the number of students who pass their GCSE exams, the number of subjects passed by each student and at what level. These types of criteria fail to take into account such measures as student difficulties, level of knowledge and attainment prior to joining the school etc. As a simple example, the student with an attainment level in English at age 11 equivalent to chronological age 14 is much more likely to pass a GCSE in English at Grade C or above by the time they are 16 than one who at age 11 has an attainment level in English equivalent to chronological age 7. These are ‘real world’ situations and merit/performance criteria don’t take this multitude of factors into account. Specifying ‘fair’ criteria to measure performance and merit pay on for all teachers is thus supremely difficult. It most certainly cannot be the same criteria for all and this of course then means that ‘comparing’ teacher performance is very difficult.
And so to the point of this long winded comment – do we need to try and measure security professionals in a similar vein? Is it even fair or appropriate to do so?
Oh, and also to add – it would appear that Don Boudreaux sends his son to ‘private’ school, so does he really truly have any concept of what it is like to teach in the public sector?
Pontification is easy without experience….
@Mark -
I stipulate to all of these challenges, but think it is even more important to address them rather than ignore them. Any measurement program (for security pros or teachers) can and should be managed with a level of pragmatism and skepticism about numbers.
The problem is that we are investing significant dollars in these activities with no great sense for the impact they are having.
Fairness and appropriateness apply to either approach – even the existing situation is unfair and inappropriate for some set of people (and therefore the population). Add to that the more important question of the benefit to kids (or enterprises) and I think the pros easily outweigh the cons in favor of measurement.
This is an argument for effectiveness and cost-efficiency, which are much more likely attained with a strong measurement program.
Pete
I think it may be the other way around. Security people don’t want to be measured because then they would have to admit that things aren’t perfect.