If you want to see how high-stakes accountability systems change the behavior of organizations, talk to a teacher.
The standardized testing and high-stakes accountability movement have had deep impact on the way schools operate and the way teachers teach. Today’s New York Times has a story about one school.
The movement has undoubtedly had some good consequences. It has put a focus on some things that needed to be looked at, I’m sure. It has also totally changed what it means to be a teacher in the public schools.
Standardization is the follow on to high-stakes accountability. Schools that do poorly on high-stakes measurements have no argument against the hierarchy when it comes in with packaged solutions and mandated curriculum changes. Teachers, too often, are reduced to ciphers for the pre-packaged lesson plans.
And the incentive to cheat can become overwhelming. When careers, insurance packages, retirement plans, and opportunities for advancement are tied to numbers, the numbers sometimes get manipulated. At the moment, that is a particularly attractive option in the UMC where none of the numbers are audited in any meaningful way. The honor system only works when the people in the system are honorable. When careers get tied to numbers, people will rationalize gaming the system for their own advantage.
The United Methodist Church is committed to high-stakes accountability.
No one is using the phrase “high-stakes” in public, but when pastoral appointments are tied to numbers, that is, by definition, high-stakes. If in the future congregations are closed or forced into plans of reconstruction based on numbers that is high-stakes.
As we move into this high-stakes future, we should be mindful of the impact such regimes have had on other institutions. Business certainly. Health care, yes. Public schools as well. We should learn from their successes. We should also look for the ways high-stakes accountability had unintended consequences and seek to head them off before they take root.
For over a generation numbers have been ignored to the great detriment of our ministry. Now after urging time out of mind, focus is being given to actual results in ministry both for clergy and congregations. Would that this had been the focus a generation ago. So much has been lost of membership and opportunity for evangelism. Some will decry the now increased focus on results. Some may doubt that such a focus on results can do any good. It is hard to see how such a focus on results can do any worse. Let standards of evaluation be verifiable. Let those standards apply across the board to all … staff, pastors, bishops. Let all be held to the exact same level of accountability.
In my ministry setting “results” are reaching boarding school students or long time inactive members-tough to measure with the rubrics being suggested.
We should all be very concerned that the Call to Action analysis is very flawed. It isn’t that causality or significance can’t be proved for the “drivers” but their own numbers show that there is a disconnect. Even worse, is that the legislation claiming to flow from the analysis seems calculated to worsen the problems rather than making them better.
If the primary problems are lack of trust and a disconnection between the general agencies and the people in the pews who pay the bills, then you would reduce the number of agencies and trim the overall staffing levels. You would INCREASE the size of the boards for the remaining agencies to give each episcopal area a representative.
We should measure local churches by whether they pay their conference billings and apportionments and whether they are adding new members as objective criteria. Then, we can ask if they have a story about Matthew 25 as a subjective criterion.
Measuring a church “by whether they pay their conference billings and apportionments” may not be the best measure. Those who are truly ministering to the last, the lost and the least, may have trouble paying a 12.5% tithe.
12.5% is not a bibilically or theologically conceived number.
Karen, I suspect it is 10% tithe to the conference plus a 2.5% for the district budget.
Those I would leave for the Matthew 25 story. But, if you aren’t meeting your financial responsibilities to the connection, adding new members (much less disciples) and don’t have anything to say about meeting the commands of Matthew 25, then why are the rest of us subsidizing their refusal to contribute to the Kingdom?
I have no problem with someone asking to see the fruits of my labors.
I do have a problem with being sent to a church with this mandate, but without support from the bishop or cabinet. Naturally, these changes take time. But they also create stress. Often that stress is used by some members of the congregation as an excuse to act out.
When that happens, pastors have an obligation to address those issues directly. And we should be able to expect support from the District Superintendent and from the Bishop.
All too often, the response is to move the pastor without any real address of the issues. Pastors treated in this way develop an undeserved reputation for “causing trouble” — a reputation often solely based on the short stays in past appointments.
I think the accountability is dead on. But I think accountability must be mutual and it must be applied to every facet of our complicated system.
When progress and results are halted because the system chose to mollify the resident power brokers at Hometown UMC, that’s when this initiative will have failed.
Thanks for this, John.
This quote: “When careers get tied to numbers, people will rationalize gaming the system for their own advantage.” = unbelievably true. The CTA changes are like communism: it can work, in theory. But human sin and groupthink and honest good people who rationalize behavior creates a perfect storm for it to fall short. Do we blame the rationalists or the system? I’ll tell you who the system will blame…
John, I believe that numbers are already considered. I believe that numbers are fudged one way or another by leaders in the church. Everyone wants to look good. Everyone wants to believe their ministry is important and “the numbers show it.”
Right now pastors will count anything that breathes in order to get their own numbers up, that is of course if they (or their SPRCs) are holding the accountable. It is a shame that more pastors and churches aren’t already holding themselves accountable for numbers. But I know from talking to other pastors that some churches “don’t care” about the numbers. I have always cared about numbers and effectiveness.
I do believe that the numbers will be fudged for this new system. At my district meeting the conversation went like this:
- during the conversation about counting small groups, clergy asked these kind of questions- “Do girl scouts count? Does an AA group from outside the church count?”
- during the discussion about counting outreach – “Do we count everyone who comes to the farmers market or just our people who help? Do we count everyone who attends our soup kitchen or just our folks?” (As an aside I wanted to ask “If our mission team goes to Bolivia, do I count just the people from my church who attend or the entire population of Bolivia?” But I didn’t)
- during the discussion about counting professions of faith, one clergy asked the following, “If we do a reaffirmation of baptism service, can we count everyone who reaffirms their faith?” (Really?)
Another conversation went on about how these numbers will be “held against” a church and that the conference would “use” the number to force out their beloved, long-term pastor (my words).
I can’t help but shake my head at the entire thing.
The whole padding the numbers really, really bothers me. I followed one pastor who padded numbers substantially, and I have often wondered why he did so. Could he simply not bear the truth? Did he want to appear to look good in a conference journal that nobody reads? Was he deluded about reality (and I mean it – he was appearing to have some mental problems / dementia in the last couple of years at that particular appointment and as he entered retirement). As a pastor, I may not have very much control over whether my congregation grows or declines numerically, but I do have control over whether or not I tell the truth about what is happening.