Ted Wragg wrote a great publication a long time ago with this catchy title. He was writing about teachers' obsessions with target setting, at the expense of learning. Amber Rudd's resignation really highlights how pervasive our obsession with targets has become. In many ways it sits at the heart of modern government - as a key means of governing and holding civil servants to account.
Rudd went because the Home Office's targets for the removal of illegal immigrants meant civil servants ended up picking off anyone who didn't have the requisute paperwork and so members of the Windrush generation were caught up in the trawl for people to deport, in order to meet the target.
Meanwhile, in Social Security, individual employees have targets to meet for refusing or freezing benefits for people who inadvertently make minor infringments, such as turning up a bit late for appointments.
In education, targets around GCSE passes have led to a form of educational triage, where those on the cusp of a higher grade receive special attention to ease them over the grade boundary, whilst those a long way off find themselves on the end of very different forms of education, often with a narrowed curriculum.
What these examples have in common is that the targets become the focus. Those responsible for meeting the targets end up excessively focusing on the narrow metrics of 'success'. Education = GCSE grades; immigration = numbers; social security = costs. In each of these attempts to operationalise and quantify the outcome, not only do managers find easy metrics for accountability, but they also translate subtle multifaceted processes into narrow simplified outcomes. Once this happens, those working in the field find themselves caught in a dilemma - either they go with the flow and just focus on what matters officially, or they attempt to effectively do two jobs: the one measured by their bosses, and the one they know to be more complex and demanding, i.e. teaching children to achieve their own personal growth; making fair judgements about individual's immigration status; or ensuring people in difficulty have enough support to live with dignity.
When your career rests on meeting targets, you will meet them (or be replaced by someone else who will) - that's why targets are so widely used in government. In the 1930s Russian peasants died of starvation whilst meeting their grain production targets. In 2018 the UK Home Office visits misery and injustice on thousands, whilst meeting its targets, in a government committed to 'fairness'.
If you (i) set targets for forced removals; (ii) in a government where targets are a major mechanism for management and accountability; and (iii) you know that the narrow targets tend to ignore the nuanced reality of complex lives; and (iv) you are not alert to the possible distortions that might arise in practice... you can't be surprised that injustices like the Windrush disaster happen.
Amber Rudd has gone, but our government's delusional obsession with targets remains. If you replace the phrase 'forced removals' with any other government policy (higher literacy, less benefit fraud, better parenting, less crime, social mobility...) the outcomes can be just as awful, and are likely to be worse for those groups who are most marginalised and dependent on the state. When we are just numbers on a balance sheet, then the opportunities for injustices are multiplied. In fact, it's difficult not to assume that injustice is built in to such a system.
(Image 'graffiti Brixton' from flickr with Creative Commons licence by Duncan C)
