0640 case for standardization
Post on 04-Feb-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
top related