Goodhart's Law and Performance Indicators in Higher Education

摘要: After describing the historical developmeni: of performance indicators in higher education and illustrations that they provide for Goodhart's law, paper discusses difference between outcome process indicators. It is suggested that, as long latter refer to underlying processes, not those immediately accessible, can be used with less risk abuse. This suggestion exemplified terms standards academic professionalism, a set appropriate processes formal audit. The 'underlying processes' are anchored concepts 'organised anarchy' or 'complex adaptive systems'. hypothesised influenced by common professional principles engaged them, so favour creatively organised anarchy which develops excellence through true professionalism 'bottom up', contrast successful managerial attempts create 'top down'. Finally, attention drawn fact traditional examinations also constitute an abuse Ke)rwords: indicators, accountability, trust, new Labour orthodoxy only private sector 'efficient' measurable way. public sectcir definition, 'inefficient' out-of-date, partly because it has social objectives beyond economic efficiency value-for-money. save itself becoming more like market. (Hall, 2003) Managerialism, at least its hard version, may allow government imagine control uncontrollable. But academics best irrelevance distraction from daily business teaching learning, worst serious threat already vulnerable institutions. Once again, major task facing British educate masters. (Trow, 1994) constant pressure, perceived lack trust teachers make judgments their pupils, pushing them ever increasing workload, inhibiting creativity, denying autonomy calling, what primarily responsible teachers' low morale theri^fore current problem retention teacher numbers. (Bassey,