Is "standardization" a good thing in education?

Question

I have read (on this site) about how homeschooling is bad because it provides no "standardization," and one particular answer even went so far as to say that the standardization is what divides the US from a third world nation.

My question then is, if standardization is a good thing, why do children in American schools score significantly lower on standardized test scores than children in other countries?

Answer 1

Children are not standardized, so neither should their education be standardized.  When seeking to standardize a school system, you must aim at the average student, ignoring the ones who are gifted, and ignoring the ones who struggle.  Or even worse, you aim at the lowest and dumb down everything.

And individual approach works much better.

Answer 2

There is no standarization anywhere, even in public schools!

Some systems teach algebra in 7th grade, others in 9th grade.  Few teach Japanese.  Each system has their own text books.

As to why America is behind the world, which it wasn't prior to 1960, it is because of political correctness, law suits, compromises, bilingual education and other factors.

There used to be a thing called a tiered system used in the 1950s and 1960 that is now either illegal or frowned upon.

They divided math and English students into 3 levels.  Remedial or slow.  Average or normal and Accelerated.

Elementary school kids from one home room were broken off and sent to different rooms for these subjects based on their grades and evaluations by the math teachers or the English teachers.

They only way to do this properly today is with charter and magnet schools that are competitive by nature.

Even then you have disgruntled parents talking about how they can get their kids in and what legal choices they have.

If you can't attack the remedial issue problems of 16 year olds reading at 10 year old levels and put them into special classes that, yes, bear the mark of the scarlet letter and often spark racist overtones, you're not going to cure the problem.

So what you do is lump them all together and 10% make As 15% make Bs 25% make Cs and 50% makes D or less.

This is how the American system works and half the country is doing substandard and to help make this better we lower the standards.

Answer 3

My grandparents, who ran their own business, their own farm and raised more kids on less money than I can would not score as high as I can on a standardized test. Why? I assure you, they were tougher, sharper people than I am. If they needed something done, they learned how to do it and they did it. I am a typical modern day person who has lost most of the skills that came second nature to the generations before me. The only difference is that I was taught to do well on such a test. They were taught to live in the real world. The tests are not good indicators of intelligence or education. They are, IMO, arbitrary and pointless. In institutionalized education, they have  a duty to be sure everyone is receiving the same opportunity to learn the same information. I grasp that. But, as there is not such a thing as a standard person or a standard life, I fail to see the usefulness of a standard education.

EDIT: A friend of my daughter came over last week an announced that she had just taken a test and that the whole class had made A's. I said, "Wow you must have all studied hard and been very proud of your selves". She answered, "No, the teacher gave us all the answers before the test." WTF? What was the point of this test? A test is meant to demonstrate that something was learned, not that children can parrot back answers 10 min after they are given word for word, line by line. This is happening all over the US. I don't want it happening in my house. That is why I HS and reject the idea of standardized testing for HS students.

    EDIT Frend2go brings up another good question: Were the kids who learned about Rome any less educated than the kids who learned about Egypt? The test says, "Yes". What if I prefer my child to learn about Greece, or ancient Mesoamerica? What if I prefer more recent history as a focus for that age group and plan to teach ancient civilizations later, perhaps timing the lesson to coincide with a trip to Egypt to visit the pyramids? Would the standardized test reflect the effect standing in the shadow of the tombs of the pharaohs had on my student? It is just too limiting. To quote my favorite movie monster, "Oh, Agent Starling, do you think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool?"

Answer 4

In some subjects standards are good. English especially. After all, we need to communicate on the same level less the dialect.

Homeschooling is not bad if the curriculum is followed. The only thing I would question is the lack of social aspects in a student's development.

In some places, SAT tests are taken by everyone even if they are not intending on going to college. That would bring overall scores down.

Then there are the students who can not read. They are the ones who just check anything and finish the test in 5 minutes.

Maybe we should do as was stated in an above post. Let schools be chosen by the student's parent according to what aims they have. Or have system where an aptitude test would determine where a student would go. Not everyone is going to be a brain surgeon.

Answer 5

Is standardisation a good thing?

Yes...if you want to educate clones.

ROFLMAO @ the comment about standardisation being 'what divides the US from a third world nation'. If that is truly the case, I strongly urge you to get rid of all standardisation from American schools now, today, lol.

I assume the writer of that comment has little or no experience of 'third world' education - okay, having now seen who the author is, all I can say is that she appears to prefer putting her faith in her own opinions, stereotypes and prejudices rather than any cold, hard facts!

Truth is, in very many instances, the 'third world' education she is trying to deride is heaps better and certainly stronger, more rigorous and more valued than the education on offer in public schools in so-called 'developed nations' like the USA. Anyone who doubts that has only to look at the most recent OECD results.

The majority of African teachers and African schools concentrate on encouraging every single one of their students to do whatever it takes to surpass and exceed their own perceived and real limitations (be it poverty, responsibility for younger siblings, being orphaned, de-motivation or whatever). Typically African schools still insist on achievement and standards (in behaviour, attitude and habits as well as in students' actual schoolwork) and will expect and actively encourage *all* their students to do their very best and to always strive for the very best that they personally are capable of achieving.

Contrast that with 21st century public schooling in much of the developed world where schools, teachers, legislators, parents, students etc are, all too often, happy to pander to the lowest common denominator; often, it seems, to ensure that 'all shall have prizes' and that little Johnny or Britney doesn't get left behind by the rest of the group and suffer almost terminal damage to their precious feelings, self-esteem and sense of self worth!

In fact in many developed countries, such as the UK and Australia, there is an increasing amount of anecdotal evidence that parents (white Anglo-European parents as well as black African parents) are increasingly choosing to send their kids to boarding schools in Africa...and *not* to those exclusive white schools in places like Cape Town and Jo'berg either!

One of my best friends grew up in rural Uganda; she was taught how to do maths such as differential calculus using nothing more than a pencil and a bit of paper (definitely no calculators) and her own brain. And, by doing so, she'll have the correct answer for you in something like 60 seconds or even less.

Standardised education or not, how many 14 year old American kids could do that for themselves?! How many would even know how to start working it out if they didn't have a calculator to do it for them? Come to that, how many US High School graduates could manage that?!

If I was to ever seriously consider going to school or, in the future, sending my own kids to school, that 'third world' education is the sort of education I would be looking for and expecting to receive for my parents' $$$/my money.

Btw, if the poster of the 'third world' comment was themselves educated, they'd know the 'third world' no longer exists! It ceased to exist, along with the 'second world', in the late 1980s. Today such countries are LDCs, the 'less developed world' (or, in many cases, the 'developing world'), the 'Southern Nations' etc.

EDIT @ gradjason...Strewth, I'm really going to have to get up off this floor soon!

Actually the line: 'the third world no longer exists' as well as being printed in numerous Economic texts** (see quote at bottom of post), in my country if not your's, was told to me by someone who teaches in an English Public School i.e. one of the schools ranked in the upper echelons of fee paying, independent, boarding schools.

Actually 'the third world no longer exists' line was told to me by a teacher from the school (Eton) that educated the Queen's grandsons; if it is good enough for William and Harry....

BTW the 'proper English' thing is boring and old-hat. I do not, and will not knowingly, use American English. That is not English as it is spoken in my country.

It's as my dad always says when any one of us kids claim that we  speak English: 'English? English!?! What the h**l do you mean, kiddo, you speak bloody English!?! You speak strine' LOL!

By the way current communist countries are:

China,

Cuba,

Laos,

North Korea,

North Vietnam.

Formerly communist countries (by current name) include:

Afghanistan,

Albania,

Angola,

Armenia,

Azerbaijan,

Belarus,

Benin,

Bosnia Herzegovina,

Bulgaria,

Cambodia,

Croatia,

Czech Republic,

DR Congo,

Eritrea,

Estonia,

Ethiopia,

Georgia,

(East) Germany,

Hungary,

Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan,

Latvia,

Lithuania,

Macedonia,

Moldova,

Mongolia,

Montenegro,

Mozambique,

Poland,

Romania,

Russia,

Serbia,

Slovakia,

Slovenia,

Somalia,

Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan,

Ukraine,

Uzbekistan,

Yemen.                                

(suddenly I can't stop thinking that Earl D is prolly asking himself how many of those countries a typical high school student could locate on a map without any help?!? : ) *smiles* )

      

I'm sure there are possibly more ex-communist countries that I just can't think of off the top of my head but I've never heard of Italy being communist - corrupt, yes; fascist, yes; but never communist. Most western (as opposed to eastern) European countries were fascist (rather than communist) /are socialist.

Quote: The Italian Communist Party was one of the most potent communist parties in Western Europe after World War II. It was established in 1921 by a radical group of the Italian Socialist Party. The party was subsequently outlawed by the Fascist regime [/end quote]

Quote: In 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell, the Italian Communist Party lost half of its members. Two years later, under a new chairman, Achille Occhetto, it renounced the principle of class struggle and changed its name to the Democratic Party of the Left.[/end quote]

|She'd also realize that my comment does not side with standardization or not standardizing.|

I have *NO* idea what you're trying to get at there, mate. Or is it simply that, as an American, you don't 'get' the subtler nuances of irony??

I don't recall commenting on your point of view one way or the other. Personally I couldn't give a rat's **** what your (or anyone else's) p.o.v. may or may not be. I *know* what I believe, what my parents believe and what my mentors believe; and that alone is heaps good enough for me.

Anyway it's been good talking to you - I've enjoyed it - so thanks for offering me this opportunity to 'chat' (and sorry to the original poster for inadvertently hijacking his thread somewhat).

QUOTE: |CLASSIFICATION

FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES...these are a small group of rich industrialised countries: the United States, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, the UK and Japan (known as the 'G7 countries'), other countries in Western Europe and Australia and New Zealand. Sometimes they are called Western countries...Sometimes they are called 'North' countries. They are also known as developed countries, indicating that they have reached an advanced stage of economic development.

SECOND WORLD COUNTRIES. The phrase 'second world' is now a historical term. It refered to the former communist countries of Eastern Europe and the USSR.

THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES...THIRD WORLD is also now a HISTORICAL TERM for a LARGE GROUP OF POOR COUNTRIES IN ASIA, AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA. Nowadays they are called developing countries (DCs) or less developed countries (LDCs) or Southern countries in order to contrast with the 'developed' countries of the North.| [/end quote]  

TAKEN FROM: Anderton, Alain. (2006) Economics: fourth edition. Published by Causeway Press. Chapter 9. Page 674. ISBN: 978-1-902796-92-6.

Answer 6

As you imply, there is already a great deal of standardization of curriculum in the U.S.

Go to any state level department of education and you will find them.

Ironically, the acronym used is SOL - Standards of Learning.

There are national standards for science published in 1995. 13 year old science standards!  As fast as technology and science moves do you think these standards could be anywhere near current?

Life is not and cannot be standardized.  I do believe some political systems have tried this approach and have failed miserably.  School should prepare one for life.

And... if standardization were a good thing... why do colleges not all standardize?  

The whole idea sort of reminds me of the Dr. Suess story / animation about the sneetches.  The sneetch goes into the machine and comes out on the other end the same as all the other sneetches.  The whole focus of the sneetches is to be like all the other sneetches.

Yar yar your belly's got no star!

Answer 7

Well, all I can say is that I agree wholeheartedly with everyone, with a couple of exceptions :-)

The person who originally stated the idea is sorely mistaken; standardization to the "nth" degree is part of what has ruined this nation's schools and will cause them to go further down into the pit of mediocrity.  Over on the teachers forum, I've seen teachers lamenting the idiocy they're forced to teach - 20 years ago, they had more control over their curriculum and could teach grade-level appropriate, challenging lessons.  Now, they're forced to teach "Hoot" (a 4th-5th grade level book) to 8th graders for lit analysis.

Quite frankly, I've seen samples of the homework coming out of the 9th-10th grade high school next to my housing subdivision...a lot of it is what my 5th grader is either currently studying, or has studied.  That's just sad.

Some level of standardization is good - we should all learn the same trade language, a working level of math facts, agree on the foundational information - but past that, standardization, as it's being used in this country, is what will hold us down.  For crying out loud, if we're going to train teachers to teach, allow them to do so.  Allow them to make the decisions as to what their students are to learn (subject to basic standards and common sense oversight) so that our schools can dig their way OUT of the third world.

Answer 8

No!

Those in favor of standardization assume two things. First, they assume that the standards they have chosen are 'good'. Second, they assume that children come standardized. Both assumptions are deeply flawed.

It is incredibly risky to pick one standard...even if it seems good, how do you *know* that it is? The best way to avoid getting stuck with something that "seemed like a good idea at the time" is to constantly innovate...and innovation cannot happen when there is one pre-determined way of doing things. Experimentation is the only way to improve things, standardization just stagnates.

And, for the record, some of the countries that have the most successful school systems are the ones where there is great diversity in schools. And how do places like Sweden accomplish this? They attach money to the child (not the school district) and allow children to attend ANY school the parents decide on...in essence, much of Europe has de facto voucher systems.

Answer 9

Those who say that standardization separates the US from the third world should see the rankings.  I live in greenville, SC.

The year I graduated (1999), the US came 14th in the world in education level.  You know who came in 16th?  Iraq.  You know, the Saddam Hussein one.  He was still in charge the year I graduated.

South Carolina came in dead last in the nation.  Of that, Greenville County came in dead last in SC.  Of that, my school came in next to last in the county.  So basically I am one nation and one school away from an Iraqi education.

Standardization can be a good thing.  It makes all curriculum in every school in the nation equal, making every education equal until graduation.  I would most likely have moved up and gotten a much better education than the one I had, as would most of my classmates.   Home schooled kids probably would have gone down, as their curriculums and their teachers (parents) pay better attention because they have fewer students to take up their time.

Standardization is a good thing as long as all the left-behind ones move up and no one moves down.  Basically meaning that every school curriculum is moved up to the level that is usually provided in home-based schooling.  Its a bad thing if it drags those who have the best education back to the level that the others are stuck with.

If Hannah M was educated, she'd be using correct English.  The meaning of third world does still exist; just because the Soviet Union no longer exists doesn't mean Communism doesn't exist anymore.  For those who do not know, 1st world references capitalist democracies, 2nd world references Communist states, and 3rd world references everyone else.  It has nothing to do with how rich or poor a country is, but what government/economy they use.

Off the top of my head I know Cuba and China are Communist.  Italy may be a democracy, but they have a strong Communist influence and even their own Communist party still exists, as does Britain's.  Not everyone is a democracy or theocracy, so the Third World does still, in fact, exist.

She'd also realize that my comment does not side with standardization or not standardizing.  My comment states that standardization is good only if it moves everyone up and brings nobody down; and if it does either it is a bad idea.  Standard education for everyone, like pretty much every issue facing every society, is a nuanced and complicated issue.  

The poster below me has given excellent reasons for why it should not be done.  I think it would work if there was some way to guarantee it would bring those left behind back to speed.  But as there is no guarantee, and in fact there is precedence to believe it will drag those who are ahead behind, I believe it would probably be a bad idea to standardize.

Answer 10

If standardization in terms of learning xyz by a certain age were actually that good and that important, or if the standards actually meant something non-arbitrary, then the entire world would agree on what the standards are and they would all test the same thing.

If the government proposed that we standardize how many words a child speaks by a certain age and when he should walk or have his first tooth, we'd think them insane. This is no different for the rest of their development and education.

Standardization has created an education that children are forced through in a certain order by a certain age. If they move to another state or country, their "standards" can be meaningless. Standardization also seems to try to create a uniformity among children in their knowledge and abilities, which is ridiculous since we are all different. What I find really ironic is that the US seems to have the most focus on standards and standardized tests than any other country, yet they are the loudest to cry freedom and individualism--standards KILL individualism in education. It looks at children not as people, but as creatures to be programmed according to a certain timeline.

We are not talking obvious standards required for a doctor or a dentist or engineer or plumber or carpenter or other professional requirements to be able to do a job. We're talking about CHILDREN, who have not chosen which field they will study, who are nowhere near ready to take on a career. We are talking about children who not only walked and talked and had their first teeth at different ages, but whose visual development (affecting their readiness to read) will mature at different ages, whose general maturity will be different regardless of age, whose natural thinking processes are different from others. We are talking individuals. The standards so touted in schools are essentially like trying to train everybody to do every job. Can you imagine adults being required by the government to go to school to meet the standards for doctor, nurse, teacher, accountant, carpenter, mathematician, etc.?

Which reminds me of the story "The Animal School" by George Reavis:

Once upon a time, the animals decided they must do something heroic to meet the problems of "a new world." So they organized a school.

They adopted an activity curriculum consisting of running, climbing, swimming and flying. To make it easier to administer the curriculum, all the animals took all the subjects.

The duck was excellent in swimming, in fact better than his instructor, but he made only passing grades in flying and was very poor in running. Since he was slow in running, he had to stay after school and also drop swimming in order to practice running. This was kept up until his webbed feet were badly worn and he was only average in swimming. But average was acceptable in school, so nobody worried about that except the duck.

The rabbit started at the top of the class in running, but had a nervous breakdown because of so much make-up work in swimming.

The squirrel was excellent in climbing until he developed frustration in the flying class where his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of from the treetop down. He also developed a "charlie horse" from overexertion and then got a C in climbing and a "D" in running.

The eagle was a problem child and was disciplined severely. In the climbing class, he beat all the others to the top of the tree, but insisted on using his own way to get there.

At the end of the year, an abnormal eel that could swim exceedingly well, and also run, climb and fly a little, had the highest average and was valedictorian.

The prairie dogs stayed out of school and fought the tax levy because the administration would not add digging and burrowing to the curriculum. They apprenticed their children to a badger and later joined the groundhogs and gophers to start a successful private school.

Answer 11

This standardization is based on the federal NCLB law. this law mandates for school kids to learn 'standards' that will be on standardized tests.

The thing WRONG with this is that this is the ONLY thing they teach in schools. All year long. They ONLY teach what is going to be on these tests so the kids can get better scores so they can pass the tests.

And when they pass, the school GETS MORE MONEY!

Gone are the days of creativitiy, individualism, learning.

Kids are not taught to LEARN anymore!

THey are fed information like robots to memorize so they can pass these tests so the school can get more money.

Kids are not taught to find answers for themselves.

And even with all this CHEATING by the schools to give the kids the ANSWERS to these tests all year long, The kids are STILL FAILING!!

Something is really wrong here!!

Read it about it here, this is written by TEACHERS--

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 12

that's why it's worth paying money to send your kids to a decent private school.  It will prepare them for college better and they will definitely exceed on the nation's standardization test.

Answer 13

some standerize testing may be good as long as the teachers go over ALL the material on the test.

This is a good example I think I have a friend that went to a school aruond were I live, all year long he studied,lets say the romen era in history well all of the material on the mcast (standerdize testing in MA) was on Egipt. so you see if students were all taught what was on that test then it will be good but if they were taught other thinks then what was on that test then NO.