If you can’t measure it you can’t manage it.

“When you judge someone based on a diagnosis, you miss out on their abilities, beauty, and uniqueness.”

Sevenly

Jacob and Zoe have been operating a local shelter for dogs for a number of years. Over that time they have taken care of hundreds of dogs that have been left with them. All kinds of dogs have been taken care of including strays found in local neighbourhoods, puppies abandoned soon after birth and others that have been ‘rescued’ from ill-treatment by their owners. The dogs come in all shapes and sizes, reflecting the variety of breeds in their care.

Their operation has come a long way from when they started by adopting a couple of local strays into their own home. The current pound is a professionally run service, catering for several dozen dogs, with purpose-built facilities to ensure the dogs are kept safe and warm, and with enough space for exercise etc.

As the enterprise has grown, so too have the demands for the time and expertise required to look after the dogs – well beyond what Jacob and Zoe could manage themselves. Besides requiring the support of an ever increasing number of volunteers, Jacob and Zoe had to devote time to oversee the daily operations, including managing budgets, maintaining records, and ensuring compliance with regulations and standards. They became responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures for the smooth operation of the pound, as well as recruiting, training, and supervising volunteers to ensure they understand their roles and responsibilities.

Their small enterprise grew rapidly, and as the financial and regulatory burden of operating a pound increased, Jacob and Zoe chose to collaborate with a network of other animal shelters in the region. Initially the network operated on the basis of sharing resources and expertise, but eventually it was formed as an organisational structure with its own management team overseeing the operation of the pounds and shelters in the network.

It didn’t seem too long before the regional entity was subsumed by a larger, national organisation. The rationale was that, in addition to being better placed to handle the ever increasing burden of administrative compliance, there needed to be a more consistent approach taken to how these animals were cared for, including the establishment of a set of operating principles and standards of care to ensure these were adhered to.

All of this was intended to enable the local pounds such as Jacob and Zoe’s to be able to focus on what they were good at, and to enable the provision of the resources and support required to do that. And for a while that was the case.

Then came a change in the leadership of the national organisation overseeing all of the shelters. This happened to coincide with a time when the press had been reporting on a number of isolated cases of animals not being cared for as well as they should be, with calls for inquiries to be made into how funding is allocated and calls for more stringent regulations around how they operate.

The new leadership of the national entity met to discuss how to resolve this, focusing attention on the welfare of the animals, and how this might be monitored in a more consistent and standardised way. This was driven to a large extent as a response to the negative publicity which was affecting the confidence of the public – and the funders – in the operation of pounds such as Jacob and Zoe’s.

The problem was that all this new team had to work on was subjective or anecdotal data – there was no national picture of just what the scope and nature of the problem actually was. They decided on a pragmatic approach, focusing on a data-driven solution that would provide evidence of improvement in the condition and care of the dogs in these environments. Their thinking was that if there were standardised processes in place for assessing the condition of the animals as they were taken into care then those working with the animals would have a clearer idea about how to work with them and see that the dogs were more fully prepared for later adoption.

At first Jacob and Zoe welcomed this announcement. To be honest, they didn’t see it as being too much of a change to what they were already doing as they undertook a fairly thorough initial assessment of the dogs entering their pound, including measuring and documenting various aspects of their physical health, behaviour, and nutritional needs. They could see it being a helpful thing if this approach was implemented consistently across all shelters and pounds – particularly if it helped identify the areas of specialist support that could then be provided and trigger sources of additional funding to address this.

The instructions duly arrived from the national agency – not terribly demanding, just a requirement that all dogs, on entry, be weighed and assessed for a body condition score (BCS) to assess if they are underweight, overweight, or at an ideal weight. Various other forms of physical assessment were required, including classifications of size and breed, and a physical examination to check for signs of illness, injury, or parasites. All of this data was to be entered into an online form, which, once entered, provided Jacob and Zoe with an easy to access record of the dogs in their care. In addition, it formed part of a national database that could be accessed and used by the national agency to determine where extra support might be required.

Jacob and Zoe dutifully completed the online form – together with the operators of the dozens of other shelters and pounds across the nation. Soon after, a national report was produced that confirmed, unsurprisingly, what most knew already; that across the nation there was a wide range of shape, size and breed of dog being cared for – all in varying states of health and physical condition. Numerous graphs were created from the data, each used to illustrate a particular perspective or view about the state of animal welfare in these shelters and pounds. The mean, median and mode were established for each set of data, and from this a ‘target state’ for the health of the animals in care was established, along with a mandatory care regime to be implemented across every shelter and pound in the country. The idea was that these measurements would be repeated on a regular basis, so that the improvements made over time to the health of the animals could be readily identified.

When Jacob and Zoe received their ‘target state’ and mandatory care instructions they were perplexed. Based on the calculations derived from the national data, they were really going to have their work cut out for them in terms of what would be required to meet these new standards. This wasn’t because they were particularly bad at their job, but because of the fact that in general, their pound catered for a much higher percentage of abused or neglected animals than most. That was, in part because of the area they were located and also because of their passion for these sorts of animals that had led them to establish their pound in the first place. They were really good with these sorts of animals, but they also knew that the improvements being sought were unlikely to be as successful on a case by case basis if they adhered to the mandatory care regime being laid down by the national agency. Their pound and the dogs they catered for made them different from many other shelters and pounds in the country.

They decided to write to the national agency and inquire about the process that had been put in place, in particular, the fact that these new sets of expectations don’t take into account the differences in need that exist among the dogs in their pound – or elsewhere in the country. They didn’t have a problem with the desire to establish a national picture of the wellbeing of the animals in care per se, rather, they were hopeful that, given the picture the data might paint, that the national entity would then take responsibility for ensuring each shelter or pound also had access to some of the specialist services that are required to address the needs of each animal as they are identified.

Caring for the individual needs of their dogs was at the heart of their philosophy as pound operators. Treating an Alsatian in the same way as they did a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel simply wouldn’t work. Besides the difference in breed, there was an increasing diversity of response required depending on the physical and mental wellbeing needs being presented.

This had become an issue for Jacob and Zoe for a while now. In addition to meeting the day to day needs of food and shelter for their animals, they were having to find the resources to secure the services of a number of people with specialist skills, including a veterinarian who conducts health assessments, diagnoses illnesses, administers vaccinations, performs surgeries, and provides ongoing medical care for the dogs together with a veterinary technician to assist the veterinarian with medical procedures, administers medications, and performs routine health checks and treatments.

In addition to these physical health needs, with the increasing number of dogs coming into the pound with behavioural or psychological problems caused as a result of prior trauma, Jacob and Zoe were also having to find people to support them in assessing and modifying problematic behaviours through behavioural therapy, and designing individualised behaviour modification plans for dogs with severe behavioural issues. While Jacob and Zoe with their small team of volunteers did their best in the early days of the pound, this job has become increasingly sophisticated and specialised, especially given the range of dog breeds they now care for.

These requirements would only increase now that the national entity was establishing their guidelines and expectations through the data they were gathering. And the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach implied by the mandatory care regime would further exacerbate the issue of providing individualised care.

The response from the national agency was somewhat disappointing. The chief executive explained that the primary function of the national agency was to provide assurance for the public and the funders that the animals in care in these facilities was of a high standard, and that each of these animals was demonstrating sufficient development in terms of their physical and psychological wellbeing to make them suitable for adoption by new owners in the community. In his response he reiterated the problem they had been presented with regarding the lack of information, and defended the decision to establish the national assessment process, saying “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” It seemed he was simply saying that, as a national agency, they would be executing their responsibilities by ensuring there was a rigorous measurement regime in place.

This didn’t satisfy Jacob and Zoe, who replied with more questions about where the responsibilities lay for addressing the needs revealed by the data – particularly when most of these could be anticipated, and where the real need lay in the provision of the specialist services and support to address these. They provided a number of examples to illustrate their point, including the numbers of dogs they dealt with that required specialist treatments that were beyond their capability as front-line carers to manage.

Again, the response from the national agency CE was disappointing. As long as they carried out their regular measuring processes and could use this to illustrate improvements in animal health he was satisfied. He didn’t see it as his or the agency’s responsibility to provide the additional support required – besides which, there wasn’t any funding available beyond what had been allocated to setting up and managing the national assessment processes. He was satisfied that the mandated care process they were insisting on being used would provide the guidance required by individual pound operators – despite the fact that the approach he was advocating lacked comprehensive agreement and buy-in from experts in the animal welfare field.

The Chief executive argued that for some time there had been reports of declining standards of care and improvement in animal health in shelters and pounds across the country, and the approach being taken would go some way towards ensuring action was being taken to addressing this. He was critical of the number of shelters and pounds that seemed more focused on working with the animals in their care more as a ‘family’, and not focused on achieving key measures of real improvement such as meeting pre-determined body condition scores (BCS)

Exasperated, Jacob and Zoe tried reaching out just one more time. They pointed out that they were, in principle, supportive of the national assessment measures, but noted that the CE’s own quote ‘if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it’, implies that the measurement is simply one part of the equation, and that to be true to what that means there needs to be more consideration and more resource given to how things will be managed. They didn’t accept that the national entity’s approach to ‘managing’ things was simply to report on the measures and expect each shelter or pound to address the needs out of their ever diminishing resources.

They did receive a reply – eventually – thanking them for their concerns and that these had be duly noted. They were also reminded that, if they wished to remain a licensed dog pound they would need to ensure they were meeting all of the expectations of the national entity.

Jacob and Zoe pondered their situation. They recognized the importance of standardised assessments and the need for accountability, but they also saw the flaws in a one-size-fits-all approach. They knew that real improvement required a deeper understanding of the unique needs of each dog and the provision of specialised support.

As they reflected, they thought about the broader implications for their community and beyond. Mandating specific strategies or care regimes without considering the diverse needs and contexts of each shelter and the animals in their care can lead to unintended consequences.

With renewed determination, Jacob and Zoe decided to rally other shelter operators and advocates. They called for a more balanced approach—one that combines standardised assessments with flexibility and resources to address individual needs. They urged their colleagues to engage in meaningful dialogue with policymakers, funders, and the public to build a more responsive and supportive system.

And so the story continues…

Time to reflect:

While Jacob and Zoe’s tale highlights the dangers of a rigid, data-driven approach in the context of managing a dog pound, it also invites us to consider the complexities of balancing structure and flexibility in education.

Let’s delve deeper.

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the focus on managing what is measured in our educational contexts (classrooms, schools, system)? Is this a sufficient way of working to achieve our educational aspirations and goals?
• How do we reconcile the need for standardised assessments and accountability with the imperative of nurturing individual potential?
• Can we create systems that value both quantitative data and qualitative insights about students?
• What benefit do such measures provide if there if it isn’t combined with the support or resource to adequately address any problems that are highlighted?
• What role does teacher autonomy and professional development play in this equation?
• What can we learn from other fields, such as healthcare or social work, about balancing data and human-centred care?

Ultimately, the success of our education system hinges on our ability to cultivate a culture of genuine care and attention for the needs of the learners. To do this well undoubtedly requires teachers have the knowledge and skills, plus the right tools, to correctly assess what those needs are and how to address them. Further, they need to have access to the specialist support and resources that will enable them to do that effectively. Insisting that measurement alone will address the needs we have with an increasingly diverse population of learners simply doesn’t make sense.

The story of Jacob and Zoe is a work of fiction and is intended as an allegory. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, or actual organisations is purely coincidental. The characters, events, and settings depicted in this story are entirely the product of the author’s imagination.