More than just semantics… October 14, 2010

Can we discuss education these days without discussing standards?

“Getting to standard”
“Raising the standards”
“Students able to state the learning standard”
“Teachers identifying appropriate learning standards for each lesson”
“Below standard”
“Standardized testing”
“Approaching standard”

What’s standard? Dictionary.com offers us a long list of meanings, including:

stand·ard   
[stan-derd] Show IPA
–noun
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
2. an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.
3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
4. an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc.: His work this week hasn’t been up to his usual standard.
5. standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable: He tried to live up to his father’s standards.
6. a grade of beef immediately below good.

Okay, definition one, an approved model for comparing. That doesn’t sound too bad. After all, we need standards to set accountability, right? And it’s all about accountability? (I think I feel another blog entry coming on.) Definition three, rule for basing judgment. We want to be able to say what works and what doesn’t, so that sounds reasonable enough. Definition four, an average or normal requirement… so we want all kids in our district to be at or beyond ‘average or normal.’ I, too, want to be beyond normal.

Now we are getting trickier. Defintion five. “Standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable.” Uh oh. We added morals and ethics into things. And we have an authority telling us what those are. Let’s just skip this one. This could turn ugly.

Definition six… perhaps my personal favorite in the educational context. “A grade of beef immediately below good.” Sounds like school lunches, right? Really though… standard for meat is just below good. Not bad, but definitely not where you’d think you would want to aim your goals and mission statements.

And the one I skipped, definition two. “An object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.” Sounds very factory based. We aim for product satisfaction for all budgets. If you are on a tight budget, don’t worry, we carry the standard model for you. It is common, but functional. No bells or whistles on this model, but it can get you places. But if you really are looking for something nice, let me take you into the plush carpeted section of the showroom and introduce you to our deluxe models. Now these ones have all sorts of special features, more customized to your styles, higher quality… but these are going to cost you.

What do we want out of education? What will we achieve if we adopt national standards? What do our state standards do for us? I know “standards” is just a word. It could be “learning targets,” “common objectives,” “expectations.” But we pick, “standards.”

Why do I worry so about that word? Standard.

Because, to me, I have a hard time seeing how standardized education aspires to create the talented scientists, writers, businessmen, artists, mathematicians, zoologists, poets, etc. that our society has used to grow and thrive.

I know, public education only guarantees students a “basic” education as the current language and funding stands now. But is “basic” the best that we can do? Is “basic” what we want from our future doctors, teachers, politicians, farmers, environmentalists, engineers, etc.? I dunno. I have been reading the news more lately. I think we have some challenges ahead of us that seem more than just “basic” problems. Will our standards shape children ready for those challenges?

Advertisement