"Believe me, I'm not going to try to get into testing"
About this Quote
The line feels like a politician drawing a bright boundary between setting direction and meddling in the mechanics. John Engler, a three-term Michigan governor known for aggressive reforms in education and state management, often pushed for clearer standards and accountability. Yet standardized testing was, and remains, a volatile arena: parents fear teaching to the test, teachers resist narrowing the curriculum, and policymakers wrestle with which metrics are fair, valid, and useful. Saying he would not try to get into testing sounds like a pledge to pursue results without dictating the instruments, a promise to let the specialists handle the design and administration while leadership focuses on goals, resources, and consequences.
There is a political calculation here as well as a philosophical one. Testing regimes are technocratic by nature and deeply contested in practice. The moment a governor specifies cut scores, item formats, or frequency, he owns the backlash. By stepping back, Engler signals respect for professional autonomy and also shields himself from becoming the face of unpopular details. It is a way of saying: hold me accountable for the system’s performance, but do not expect me to write the exam questions.
At the same time, the remark underscores a central tension in accountability politics. Leaders want measurable outcomes, but measurements shape behavior. Delegating the test does not absolve the decision-maker from the effects of what is being measured. The choice to refrain from getting into testing is a commitment to governance by principle rather than by instrument, and it relies on trust that the instruments will be valid, transparent, and well governed.
Engler’s reassurance points to a model of leadership that sets standards, appoints capable administrators, and demands clarity on results, while resisting the impulse to micromanage the tools that produce those results. It is both pragmatic humility and strategic distancing in a domain where the details can decide everything.
There is a political calculation here as well as a philosophical one. Testing regimes are technocratic by nature and deeply contested in practice. The moment a governor specifies cut scores, item formats, or frequency, he owns the backlash. By stepping back, Engler signals respect for professional autonomy and also shields himself from becoming the face of unpopular details. It is a way of saying: hold me accountable for the system’s performance, but do not expect me to write the exam questions.
At the same time, the remark underscores a central tension in accountability politics. Leaders want measurable outcomes, but measurements shape behavior. Delegating the test does not absolve the decision-maker from the effects of what is being measured. The choice to refrain from getting into testing is a commitment to governance by principle rather than by instrument, and it relies on trust that the instruments will be valid, transparent, and well governed.
Engler’s reassurance points to a model of leadership that sets standards, appoints capable administrators, and demands clarity on results, while resisting the impulse to micromanage the tools that produce those results. It is both pragmatic humility and strategic distancing in a domain where the details can decide everything.
Quote Details
| Topic | Learning |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
