I once ran for School Board in Branson. The good news is that I made a fairly strong showing – I finished right behind two very popular incumbents. The bad news – which I later decided was also good! – is that there were only two slots open!
I mention this to say that one of the constructive critiques I received of my candidacy was that I was too ‘wishy-washy’; too ‘on the fence’, as it was called, in various issues. I confess this critique had validity, but I’m still not sure it was a weakness. (I can be good at rationalization.) I have always maintained that issues encountered in education are MUCH more complicated that they often appear (especially to Congress), and solutions to problems are not always straightforward. Indeed they can be fraught with hidden dangers and unintended consequences. It is actually important to be ‘on the fence’ for awhile at times – the view and the perspective from there is often better. Balance is often needed as part of a win/win solution process.
And the point of all that – finally – is that I’m going to climb back on the fence and argue – or at least mention – the other side of an issue I discussed in last month’s blog. Then, I made a case for the subtle dangers involved in standardizing many of the steps and stages in our educational processes. But the other side should be given fair treatment as well, for – surprise? – this ‘standardization’ issue is not easy.
Since the rapid expansion of our country during our frontier days, we have become a strong ‘local control’ nation– and we are fiercely proud of it. No one knows better – so the argument goes – what is best for our kids than our local school boards. And, of course there has always been truth to that argument. But, the argument also has limitations.
For years, I taught at a small liberal arts college, whose associated public school district was in a small town that still prides itself on its small – even rural – roots and values, and works to preserve them. This can be most refreshing! But, as a result, it was not unusual for the make-up of that school board to consist of three faculty members from the college – often with terminal degrees – and three local graduates who may or may not have gone further in their schooling beyond high school. This is all fine, but imagine the diverse perspectives about ‘what is best’ that was inherent in the backgrounds and viewpoints of those board members!
Our nation’s schools have taken considerable heat in recent years (and decades) over our relatively poor showings in international comparisons of various test results. It is worth noting that –almost without exception! – countries that ‘beat’ us are countries that have standardized (if not nationalized) curricula. This is not necessarily to suggest a cause/effect relationship, but it gives one pause. It seems to be a case of ‘pick your poison’, perhaps.
In passing, I’ll note that my own discipline of mathematics education – through the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)– has addressed these contradictory concerns in forward-thinking fashion. The NCTM was the pioneer of the “Standards” movement, in which rigorous ‘Standards’ of what students can be learning and achieving are presented as a vision (with multiple professional suggestions), without dictating how these goals are achieved or even if they should be adopted.
Finally, and this is important: the point in all of this is NOT to argue for or against standardization in general. Obviously there are pros and cons either direction and in different circumstances. Instead the point is to re-emphasize (continually!) that issues in education are not easily solved, and should not be treated as if they are.