Forcing failure: Why stacked rankings are absolutely the worst way to evaluate schools

"Stacked rankings" are the business equivalent of education's bell curve for grades. A few "A's" and "F's" and a whole lot of "C's".

Microsoft has used stack rankings. Some argue that it led to Microsoft's "lost decade"; a loss of collaboration and creativity. 

Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft.

Kurt Eichenwald

Vanity Fair, August 2012

HB 5112 (page 14), recently introduced in the Michigan state legislature, requires the following:

1. No more than 10% of public schools are assigned a grade of A
2. Approximately 28% of public schools are assigned a grade of B
3. Approximately 31% of public schools are assigned a grade of C
4. Approximately 28% of public schools are assigned a grade of D
5. and at least 5% of public schools are assigned a grade of F

Stacked ranking - enshrined in state law.

Microsoft thinks so much of it that they have abandoned it. Brustein says that "corporate America has largely lost confidence in management programs that jam employees onto bell curves."

Yet, HB 5112 requires failure.

Why?

The cynical side of me is inclined to believe that it is because those opposed to public schools want to ensure that there will be failures. 

This model refuses to accept that all schools could be doing well. 

Why not create a real system that honestly evaluates what is occurring without mandating that there be failure? 

Public schools are doing good work. Instead of mandating failure let's create a system that honors the hard work and the success is occurring in public schools.