7/21/2019 0640 Case for Standardization

1/5

ololo ' t

How

not

o

respond

o

the

Spe/lings

eport'

f

r , l re

1'por*A

mn

l

lner

educJlrorr

o

'e

r00

?aor

o[

I

i . ." t*

" '

tr l*" ' ""

t lJrs 'rPrslP

'r re\

r '^rmissio

on

I'r"

i'ur'"

"

Hi*r'''

t:Jtt' lrlr'

a

i:'t

uJ

lrd't'hip:

Trn,nr'

,o"

r'r,,

i ot

'"

Hi4h(r

ltuc

tio).t

o're

r-r'cula-

; ; . : ;

;

""d.

" '"

"n

or-rag"rr ' ha' du' lr r r^"rrt . ,r r r ' r ' l

' l i#"]

,n" " ' i

"u 'r ' '

'

cal 'Pd

o'n

r le

'ep'

'

s

"Pi$er

ffil;;;;"b[

^"';rding

io

this

arsument

he

stardardi'

1

", ' . ,

" , . i ,eJ

'r"

"r ' "r1

11'orrrrn

7/21/2019 0640 Case for Standardization

2/5

public nstitutions, nd

pdvale

iberal artscollges

avediflercnt

missions

nd serae iffrnt

opulations." tsident ennett f

Eadbrm

complaiff that

thconrmission

omes angeroudy lose

to mplying

hat a onesize-fits-ail

melsurcshould

reusedi

"The

dive$ity

of o hstilutions'

missions nd

[of]

our studnts

calls or

a

diveNiry

f mersures-not

some

i($hington-in1posed

single

st.

Alongsimilar

ins,JohnChurchlll,dle secrct:lrv f lhe Phi

BetaKappa

Societxnsists hat

he rcport's demrnd

or common

measurmnf'

hrea@ns

hal hasbeen hestrenglh

of Americar

highreducation,

ts

"dive$ity

and

"decnha1i2ation."ndJill

Bck,be

president

f

Lawrcnc niversiiJ',

rgueshat

weshould

resist

'one

siz-fits-all'

st nstruments,"

ince afundamenlal

strcngthof highr

educations ils

rmarkablenslitulional

divf

slry."Thecommission's

misguided

enchmark,"

Beck

onnnues,

''have

lle effect

f lrying to bomogenize

merican igher

Good standardization

Demystif

es

Ve see our majof prcblenNwlfi this,nti-standaldization

position.

Fimt, ie wholesaLe

cjeclionof common

standar&

ails

to distinguishbetsen

good

andbad oms

of standafdization.

Tb standardizedes$

hat characterize

o child tft Behind

(following

a long history

of assmblyline pproaches

o school

ing) have

Civen

tandadization

ucha bad name

h2t l has

becomeoo easy o rejectstandardization

.rsrt,

tbrougha sort

of

guilt

by association.

s ong aswequate ll standardization

with invidious,No Child

ft Behind-style esting

or tlr

McDonaLdization

f knerican

culturc, l ignore

h exislence f

other

ornrsof standard'zalion----{nvirormental,

ealth,and

safely ta.ndards.

o mentiononly

a fewobvious xamples-that

mostof us

readilyaccepl f insiston.

Inded, omedegree

f

sta ardizarion s ssenlialot justfor a goodsociety. ut for one

that is accssible

swil.How

would

you

ike it if, every

ime

you

useda computet

you

had o leam an

entirelynew

pmgramor

adjust o an

eniilly differcntkeyboard

onl'iguratior?

Second,he blankel

cictionof

educational tanda'dization

s

undemocratic. osay

hat acadmic ompetenc

an't be

udged

by anyslandardized

ersuremysliiies nch

complencey urn-

jng

it into a mattr

of tasteolrYhirf.

^n

inefr leje ne Mit

quoi

mysterioudy

ossessed

y a minority of sulJedof

alnts ather

rhan a stof

practiceshat can be dentified,

modeled, nd made

generally

ccssible.t s

a shortstp tonl telling

the Spellings

d

Gvo-

7

Commission,

Sory,

bul wecolleges

rc

usl

toodiverse

o be

masurd

y ny conrmonstandard,

o lelliDg.lt r&t?b, Sorry

but thebasic kills

hal

you

need o

smceedn college le

ust

too

complexand hetemgenous

o be explained

o

you

clearly."

Third, attacl$on

educational tandadization

impLymirror

and rcinforceAmdcan

ducation djsconncld,

mgmented

status

uo.

Anrerican

ollegsodaycan

nded e

prcud

of their

imprcssiventellectualnd disciplharydjversiryWhat s far less

implssiv, owevr.

s thir rcod in helfing

studentslegotiate

thar divelsilyby

povidjng dremwith lhe skjlls

neededo nlak

sense f

il. Chrn the discontinuities

f fie educational

)sten

(discontinuities

ra standafdiz

ion would hlpcouni,eracl)

students

a\ no assunncehat

wbat hey eam n one

grad

1e\1,

nstitution,discipljne,

r coulswill be rccognizd,

ewarded,

andbuilt

on in the Dext.A nrinoriiy

of high achievers

manageso

se hrough

hecunicular disco.nection

o detcthe

undrmen

lal criticahhinkirg

skills hat

hndedieeffective cademic

ork n

fu1y ourse r dscipline.

fh

majodtyof

studerts, o$tver,

hrv to

rsort o the

xn1iliar acticof

giving

exch

successivefftructor

whatver e or

shesemso want

nd Lhen oing hat

again

with the nexi

nstructofaDddrenexi

rbr fiesstudenls,

iving

instructo$

wbateverheywa

-rrsuming

stldentscan igurc

out

what

hat

is-repla.s cumulative

ocirlizatlon nto

aca

dF

.

qa)(

or ninkjnS,jnd

nl

rg CollegF

hr|s

p, rnp.

'ere

of

discidils ndcourses,

achndingo

pesent

diffrnt

picture

of wha acadernic

ork ook lik b

t fewhaving he

overarchhg tatus

hat a cu||iculum

with

grater

landardiz

ion

of basic

nte ectual

p|acti{rswouldcontbr

lrst and most mportanl,

t is snrply not true,

as he anti_

standadization

argunent

has t, tba colleges rc

sodiv$dlat

fiey sharc

no commonstandaftLs.Jusi

ecauservo

people,

o.

example,

on'tsharc n rtefijst

n baseballr cooking,

t does

not bllow hat drcydon' haleother hings n comnlon-or that,

just

becaus

erl?lcolleges

avediffercnt tpes

of faculties f

se e different

tudent

populations,heycan sharno common

pdagogical

oals.

nalketing nstructor

l a comm'.rnityollege

a biblical studis

nsluctof at

a church-affiliated ollege,

nd a

feminls iteraturc

nstructorat an Iq League

csearch niv6iq'

would

rsumablyiffr adicallyn thelr

disciplinaryx rtise,

lheir intilectlLal utlooks,

nd $e st

ents hey each,but

il

wouldbesuDrising

f thrcwercnot a

gfeat

dealof cofirmon

grcund

n what

hey gardasacceptable

ollege-leveLol*. At the

nd of thedai fiese

nstruclorswould

probably gre-ot.rrrrll

MAY_.]UNE

2OEEl

] 7

7/21/2019 0640 Case for Standardization

3/5

INSTEAD

EF

D

EFENSIVEL\ /

INSISTINE

OLJR

IRREDUgIELE

DIVERSITY'

\^/E

IN

EDLJEATION

SHELILD

BE

E]PENING

UP

Spllingsl

ritics,

rowe\f'

|gue

that

such

agreemeni

s

Llusory

Tllus

n

his

sponse

o

$r

Porl'

lShlrlnan,Prsidenti ihe

Carnegje

orrtrdation

or

lrc

AdvJnce

mnt

f

feaclrillg

rgue\tht

tlrougn

educators

al

smr

o agrce

n

r|

imDort"nce

t

critic'l

lhiDking

as

a

standad

or

coLlege

e\l

work'

he

term

s

Lr*d

o

lnean

so

maI,Y

diffrcnt

hings

dr^t

ls

usetulnss

s

a

sBndard

s

rndennined

As

Shulman

puts

l,

comnlon

ducxtionat

oars

like

cdtical

iinking

ate

often

invoked

of

quiieditTercni

chiel

ments.

. .

NosingLe

i

ot Ineasurs

..

cando

ustice

oall dloce arixhons

i,ike

Soellins

s

oftr

cihl]s

melr

iiorlei

abo e,

hulmJn

emrn'isrLrxt

colleges

e

kee

o nke

man\

ddrr

cni

plrcaches

o highereducrrro rl

E]N

HIEHER

D

EEtATES

sD.ndin

vrlh^ut

confu

nts

reader

crliny,eviderrct

nd

showing

'$

1i

suDrr;r$

ne

o$rr

trgument

nLI

c;peing

onesl

nd

anncipating

,nd

rswedngcounterargume

These

undantntals-trhose

ubiquitv

n

dt

intellectual

worLd

shlrLman

enies-arc Prec'sIY

ihose

hxt

most

siudents

ail

to

lex

And

n

ouf

iew,

tudentswlL

oon

failiry

to

leam

hes

undamnta

Lrnlss

he,\'

re

siandadized

acros

,ll donains

nd

evels-that

$'

x

reDresenied

ith

nough

cun

d;cx

consistnq.

md

transparc

that

stlrdent

can

rccogniz

he|n

fundxmentalsxiherthan

rs

one

s

of

atbitmrY

rcferrces

ompeti

for

their

altention

xnong

rnan)

Condusion

ln sum.

hen,

here

ha\

io

be

a D

Na)'

o

rslond

o

the

SpellineF

e

oort

drxn

to

reiect

l]e

de^

oI

co

mon

standards

nstead

l

dten

h

inlsrinP,

f

olrr

rrcducibl

i

srhr

e r1

LghrdLlcat

n

sho

o|ening

Lrf

dehates

n

Lamluy

aircs

rhe ounLn

ver

wlrcrtre

^re

commonpmcticshxt und

that

Li\ lsrq

Il

a

corsensrrs

flt

IhrI

rlren

xk

rs

with

gurd

lead

w think

itwill,

$ should

ben

cnl lect i e l \ -$r th

dr

ul l

prr t

iiorl

nf

culLege

ffuhjes-ro

rd

md

stanclatdiT

hose

practices

that

studenls

cllrl

morc

reddiLy

m

tef

iem.

Engagingit1

ris sian

zatior Dr,'crss

rmPodrnr'

we

thrnk,

ot

lust

lause

wrtho

Chr lJ

f t

B.hrnd

\ t \ le

eAio

standardrzatroLr

n\

be

nrlrn

us

Lrnwiilinghaut becausen

qent

stxndardization

s critica

;ission

of

dcmocmtic

edlrca

which

enlails

being

a

explic

Dossible

out

the

k

moves

o

demic

^nd

pubLic-slhere

itra

belfints

a5

mrn\

studdrt5

'

s

ro rn*stef

Lhe

ln

our

view

ducliion

does

ned

common

clafds,

eln

if

ttle

Sleuln$

Commission

nys

t

does

0

$uo' t

EIN

EAMPUSES

AEROS5

THE

EOUNTRY

WHETHER

THERE

ARE EEMMEN PRAETIEES

THAT

UNDERLIE

THAT

DIWERSITY'

OW

ER

aqrce-drxI

cuLleg-ducatd

siudort*,

egardlest

f Lheit

bact