hillkm.com


  • Home
  • EDL: TAY
  • Resources
  • EDUC 522
  • EDUC 523
  • EDUC 524
  • EDUC 525
  • EDUC 532
  • EDUC 536
  • EDUC 605
  • EDUC 620
  • EDUC 712
  • EDUC 713
  • EDUC 714
  • EDUC 715
  • EDUC 790
  • EDUC 792-4
  • EdD Program
  • Latin
  • Contact
  • SPSS & Tutorial Videos
  • CV

EDUC 522 Week 3: Using Benchmarks to Drive Performance



Introduction Setting goals and targets to drive organizational performance is a common problem solving strategy in both the private and public sectors. Although setting “stretch goals” has been shown to work in a few isolated cases, data driven benchmarking is the preferred and more common approach. A benchmark is a reachable, objective, and reliable categorization or numerical scale by which organizational performance is assessed. There are two ways to benchmark organizational performance: peer-based benchmarking and standards-based benchmarking. In peer-based benchmarking, similar or aspirational peer organizations are used as performance benchmarks. For example, a private research university such as USC might benchmark its student retention rate to that of peer institutions such as Stanford, Harvard and Yale. The second way to benchmark is to use objectively determined standards of performance. For example, a Title I school might target resources to assure that 100% of its students meet the “basic” level on the standardized tests. Unit learning goals When you finish this unit you will have learned to: 1. Use peer-based benchmarking to solve a variety of accountability problems in K-12 education, higher education and industry. 2. Use standards-based benchmarking to solve a variety of accountability problems in K-12 education, higher education and industry.

Questions to answer before class as you complete your reading assignment: 1. Use both peer-based benchmarking and standards-based benchmarking to begin to solve an accountability problem that you have identified.


Unit 3 ppt. Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48. Gladwell, M. (2011). The order of things. The New Yorker, 69-75 Dowd, A. C., (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Lumina Foundation for Education. College Scorecard. https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/ Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. (2003). College rankings and ratings: The test of reputation. In E.G. Bogue & K. Hall (Eds.), Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving policy, enhancing performance (pp. 51-75). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kenneth Martin Hill


hillkm@usc.edu