* Normative and Individualized Standards
Normative and Individualized Standards
Schooling implicates provision of structured learning opportunities. Almost invariably, structured learning opportunities implicate measures-of-performance. Measures of performance implicate “Standards.” Both student matriculation and teacher accountability are often made dependent on performance-in-relation-to-Standards.
It may be useful to distinguish between Normative Standards and Individualized Standards. Normative Standards arise as a result of exclusive determinations of (1) what should be taught, and (2) student typification.
“What should be taught” is a community/political determination, where the community may be local, provincial, or national in scope. What-should-be-taught determines what-will-not-be-taught.
Student typification most notably takes place as an effect of “age-grading.” In age-grading, we presume that all students of a particular age should be able to perform according to some standard. Here, performance involves a (1) demonstration of mastery (2) within a presumed timeframe.
Normative, or Normal Standards are those standards that depend on student typification. In general, such standards are “one-size-fits-all.”
Efforts made on behalf of ordinary observation reveals that—in many important dimensions—student typification may have limited utility. If deployed in excess, student typifcation may be mis-educative. When used as an exploratory device, typification can be part of a useful assessment strategy. However, conclusive typification—when applied as if the typification were an existential verity—is indicative of a failure of discrimination, of discernment.
There is no such thing as a typical 6-year-old girl. If 45 out of 50 6-year-old girls play with dolls, we can come to know this by individualized assessment, with zero inclination to inquire why five of the girls do not play with dolls. Discriminating assessment will inquire as to the precise nature of doll-play with each girl, not will all of the 45 girls. We will not presume that girl 46 plays with dolls. We will take the trouble to assess her interests, noting that she prefers to play with Leggos, for instance. Not relying on cognitive automaticity, we will make an effort to note individual interests, and provide learning opportunities accordingly.
[Note: I am making the point that Types do not exist. The matter of Types is a deep mystery, deserving of mindful penetration. Rather, I am challenging the reader to monitor unmindful, unverified, mechanical, often miseducative typification.]
As educators, we will cease schooling driven by Normative Standards. We will take the trouble to provide continuous, individualized assessment. We will not provide learning opportunities that are normative, but rather individualized. We, in short, will provide suitable learning opportunities along with suitable, individualized standards.
I claim elsewhere that determination of “suitable learning opportunities” arises out of continuous assessment of Authentic Interest. Provision of normative learning opportunities (no one has bothered to assess fitness) implicates failure-by-design.
Make note that a significant volume of social science research proceeds by means of statistical analysis. In large part, statistical analysis incurs measures of central tendency; In other words, the foundations of public education policy are built on a presumption of the efficacy and utility of Normal measures and student typification.
For personal verification: For several weeks, observe tendency to typify within oneself and others. Note when and if typification requires attention, or whether it might proceed in relative automaticity. Note when and if typification prematurely subverts discrimination. Note tendencies to come-to-conclusions. Note tendencies to normative language (all, everyone, they, we, etc.); is such language use accurate, intended? Or, once again, might such language use be automatic.
Various mental functions/operations are available to us, as teachers. Some of these functions are quite basic, and provide only a modicum of leverage upon understanding. Others are abstract and provide greater leverage. Observing myself, I notice that the parts of my mental function that automatically associates, normalizes, typifies, concludes, mimics, that enters into either-or dialogue are not the parts that can rightfully name themselves (for oneself) ”teacher.” These ancient parts are, rightfully, bent to my physical survival. However, they must be complemented and even supplanted by my interest in redefining “survival”—in becoming myself by helping others to become who they are.