We keep treating work-based learning like a logistics problem—count hours, check boxes, call it success. The field's been doing this since 1976, when Congress mandated evaluation provisions that forced us to count everything except what actually matters. Dewey warned about "mis-educative" experiences—ones that arrest growth rather than advance it. A WBL placement that doesn't challenge a student, that treats them like a warm body in a chair, isn't just ineffective. It teaches them that work is hollow, that their time doesn't matter.
So I'm done performing accountability. I want to build a system where employer evaluations, student reflections, and skill rubrics actually talk to each other—not sit in separate folders. I want to disaggregate everything, because if we're not breaking it down by subgroup, we're hiding from the truth. And I want to start with one question: "What did this experience actually do for this student?"—and follow it wherever it leads. Because if we're not willing to let data challenge our assumptions, we're not evaluating. We're just documenting our own certainty.
