Uniformity in Education

Is it wise to want sameness and /or uniformity?

I admire the paintings of Monet.  Do I need to compare the paintings of Monet to Renoir in order to know that his paintings are beautiful and well done? Do I need to compare Raphael to Michelangelo in order to know that Raphael has skill?  There is great skill in each but in terms of consistency, consistency between one and the other in terms of presentation, there is very little similarity.  Each approaches their area in a different way and one can not be used to evaluate the other.  Yes, there is value in comparing and contrasting one great work with another.  But only in terms of enhancing our love and admiration for each.  If we compare great works for the purpose of producing uniformity, we do so at the risk of killing creativity, expression and freedom of thought.

So what are we doing comparing the students of Oregon to those in New Jersey?  We are comparing a product.  There is great value in a set of same products to be not similar.  I noticed through the years that business terms and industry terms crept more and more into education speak.  It may be a coincidence but I doubt it.  Language usually reflects how people think about things.

In production of an object, there is great value in sameness.  But a human is not a product, but a distinct individual with intellect.  

How does making kids into a product comport with all this talk about individuality and thinking outside the box?  What we are doing with nationalized tests and national standards is creating uniformity.  This is weird in terms of all this talk of diversity, divergent thinking and independent thinking.  Those are smoke screens for what is actually happening.  What we have is a push to create uniformity in thought on a number of areas.  I once had In School Suspension duty one period a day at West G.  Boring job, but in the suspension room were text books for examination for adoption on a shelf.  So I picked up American history books and selected a period.  I chose the abolitionist movement.  It mentioned famous Black activists who worked for it, certain groups who did the same.  But not a word of the real hot bed of the abolitionist movement:  the churches.  I wonder why.  I noticed, too, that when it came time to discuss the modern civil rights movement that Martin Luther King was referred to as Dr. King, never Reverend King.  His reference to news papers at the time was always Reverend King.  The civil rights movement first began and maintained its drive in the churches.  Yet, the insistence of some for the necessity of uniformity and the zeal for some committee to decide what topics to approach, how to approach these and how long, controls in a nuanced manner what people know about something and how they feel about particular individuals, ignored some interesting facts.

I showed Inherit the Wind several times in class.  It portrays in a fictional manner the trial which took place in Tennessee years ago.  A teacher was on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Frederick March, Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly gave impressive performances.  We had been translating selections from Cicero where he presented arguments on difficult and controversial topics.  We watched the movie 20 to 30 minutes each day followed by a series of questions to make sure the students followed the arguments.  The main point of the movie was that the teacher was not permitted to express his views on a controversial subject.  The court room exchanges were engaging and dramatic.  At the end of the movie, I gave a brief presentation on Intelligent Design which has been relentlessly attacked by many.    I then asked my students to write a paper constructing an argument why a teacher should be allowed to present a case for Intelligent Design.  

I was looking for two things- 1. I wanted the students to take arguments used in the movie to justify why someone should be allowed to present an argument for a controversial topic such as ID, 2. I wanted the students to confront the defense of an idea with which they might not agree.  

How would a review committee of Common Core (or by whatever name it goes) feel about my idea?

One more.  I taught Latin a particular way.  Others I knew by the dozens taught another way.  Some used one textbook method, others a different one.  Each method was quite different from other systems.  It would never occur to me to dictate to another Latin teacher, which book to use, which method to employ, what history topics to cover or what was valuable in an author.  Each teacher must employ that system which best suits their nature and personality.  To enforce my views upon them would be a disaster.  And that is what we have with CC.  

I suggest that any system which sets standards for education contains the values and views of those committee members who write out the program.  Their values may be fine points, but their values and the necessity for uniformity end up preventing alternate views, alternate views which just may increase admiration for those values of the committee or even improve them or perhaps cause those to be rejected.  At the heart of this is the ability to critique a viewpoint, the right to think outside the box and the right to think.  This is a dangerous path we have taken.