Merrill Vargo

Merrill Vargo

If you lot cease and think about it, when Edison invented the light bulb he also had to invent the socket. Edison was a primary innovator, simply it must have get clear to him pretty rapidly that continued innovation on the socket wasn't the point, and that standardizing the socket actually made information technology easier to innovate at the level of the bulb. You tin can visit any hardware store to see the power of this idea.

The thought that standardization lays the foundation for innovation is one that everyone in the high-tech world recognizes, but information technology is particularly relevant to education correct now. The governor has only proposed allocating $1 billion for implementation of the Mutual Cadre State Standards, and this has sparked a familiar contend: Where in a schoolhouse system should decision-making happen?  When it comes to the Mutual Core, who should get to determine what? People In search of an answer say things like we should be "tight on goals and loose on means" or "decisions should be fabricated by those closest to the children." Things like this sound good when y'all say them fast, only they don't really answer the question. Loose on all the means?  Really? And which decisions, exactly, should exist made closest to the children?

If we reframe the question every bit not about autonomy or "who'due south in accuse here?" but rather equally nigh what should be standardized and why, the answers look dissimilar. One argument is that standardization is justified whenever it creates efficiencies. This matters; good stewardship of resources should exist a core value for any school system. But efficiency is not the primary argument for standardization. Standardizing some things tin help teachers by reducing the number of things they need to worry about. Everybody has a limit to the amount of complexity they can manage, and classrooms are complex places. Standardization is also sometimes justified as a tool for "equity." This is a misunderstanding; standardization can be used to guarantee equal inputs to an educational procedure, just equity of opportunity or outcomes rarely is produced solely through a focus on equality of inputs. But the fundamental – and often misunderstood – function of standardization is really to foster customization and even innovation. It's about sockets and bulbs.

With the adoption of the Common Cadre State Standards and the implementation of the new assessments from the Smarter Counterbalanced Cess Consortium (SBAC), California has opted to standardize a few key elements of the system: standards and assessments. These are sockets, and rightly understood they lay the foundation for innovation. Edison had to screw the seedling into the socket and turn information technology on to run into which pattern worked best. Standardized assessments make it possible for teachers to test the effectiveness of a variety of instructional strategies and curriculum materials. It is the systematic testing of the innovation that is the key hither, and that tin't happen without the socket, which in this case is the state assessments.

Of grade, education systems are complex, and ane person'due south light seedling is another person's socket. As we move into the Mutual Core, many schools still care for the school schedule as a socket that might every bit well be standardized; others want to experiment with an extended schoolhouse day. Some districts still want to move into the Common Core by adopting a textbook series, thus standardizing the instructional materials. Nevertheless even some of these districts are encouraging teachers to experiment with a variety of what educators call "pacing guides," which are the roadmaps that teachers employ to thousandove through the textbook. What is important to empathise hither is that none of these answers are wrong: Context matters, and the reply to the "where to innovate" question is nearly finding the overlap between what issue will spark the most creativity from teachers and students and what could take the almost potential to affect student learning. When we focus creativity on how instruction is delivered, it leads us to composite learning innovations that utilize tools like Khan Academy. If we focus inventiveness on curriculum, we may get Linked Learning approaches that integrate workplace skills and experiences into the curriculum. Still other innovators – aka teachers – will want to work on some kind of performance assessment that they think volition inspire their students.

All of these innovations – and many others – can brand sense, simply what is important to go on in heed is that light bulbs crave sockets. If nosotros want an education arrangement that models, teaches and fosters innovation, nosotros demand to standardize a few key things. But if standardization is reframed as a tool not for control but rather to support innovation, we will determine very carefully where standardization matters and where innovation or customization should exist encouraged.

Figuring this out is a task for leaders: state policymakers, superintendents, board members, principals. It is a new task, only one worth doing well.

•••

Merrill Vargo is both an experienced academic and a practical expert in the field of school reform. Earlier founding Pivot Learning Partners (so known as the Bay Area Schoolhouse Reform Collaborative, or BASRC) in 1995, Dr. Vargo spent nine years teaching English in a variety of settings, managed her own consulting firm, and served as executive manager of the California Institute for School Improvement.

To go more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource's no-cost daily e-mail on latest developments in education.