By Jon Miller | Post Date: October 31, 2010 7:49 PM | Comments: 3
The words standard, standards, and standardization with their associated concepts and meanings cause a lot of trouble for lean thinkers and others whose intentions are to promote continuous improvement without the lean label. A basic point of confusion is that the variants associated with "standard" seem to result in very different observed behaviors and experiences. There may also be simple local differences in language and cultural differences or biases in what these standard-words mean to people in manufacturing, service, education, government, science, engineering and so forth. A case in point is the speech by education reformer Sir Ken Robinson. View the full 55 minute version of Changing Education Paradigms or the 12 minute cartoon version created by RS Animate.
During the presentation Sir Ken Robinson makes the case for reforming the education system and uses variations on the notion of "standard" in at least three ways, at times endowing them with positive qualities and at other times the opposite. According to him the problem is that today's education system was designed for the economic and social assumptions from another time and this system no longer serves millions of learners across many countries. The two assumptions which built the current system are intellectual and economic, which he terms "the two pillars". The first refers to the notion that there are smart people and non-smart people and that the process of public education stratifies and sends people on their way to the careers fit for each. The second refers to the fact that the education system is modeled on and in the interests of industrialization, observing that "we still educate children by batches" because children are put through the education system by age group. He asks:
Although increasingly the education system is about standardized testing, standardized curricula and conformity, Sir Ken says that we need to go in the exact opposite direction. Citing and questioning the so-called epidemic of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) among children and its correlation to the rise of standardized testing and the resulting boredom in the class room, he argues for the recognition and valuing of what he calls "divergent thinking" or the ability to see multiple answers to a question and not just one.
He concludes that in order to reform education three fundamental parts of its genetic code must be recognized and changed. We must:
Standard, standards, and standardization; the non-standardized semantics surrounding these concepts as well as their association with conflicting notions of conformity versus creativity, stagnation versus success, idealism versus improvements result in much heated debate and no small amount of confusion among well-intentioned people. Within a standard (best known way or system) there are discrete standards (rules, conditions, or performance benchmarks). The act of standardization involves copying elements of the standard so that some or all of the system performs according to certain standards. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a standard, setting standards or standardization. There is nothing inherently good either, as we can follow a false standard, set and aim for poor standards and then propagate these through standardization. Oddly, the industrial model that Sir Ken Robinson decries in fact does not tolerate this behavior for long. The market will not allow it. A well-managed industrial process checks to make sure that raw materials that are introduced into a manufacturing system meet standards that allow them to successfully complete the process and produce the desired results. Modern industry has made breakthroughs such as the standardization of processes, interchangeable parts and innovations in on-the-job and off-job education. Modern industry has weathered more than a century of drastic change through market pressures to improve quality and reduce costs, surviving remarkably.
If today's educational institutions were to be judged against models of industrial maturity, most of them could be said to practice a primitive form of craft work wherein the craftsman (teacher) is expected to work with at best highly personalized and at worst inadequate tools, required to handle an infinite variety of raw materials (students), all the while given only limited financial reward and social recognition in too many cases. In this model results will, and do vary. Rather than move education away from all things industrial, away from standardization and its benefits, towards an aesthetic and arts-oriented system with the good intentions of tapping into the potential of each unique individual, we should study the state of the art (the standard) within the best run organizations. Education can learn a lot from how industrial firms meet and beat global performance standards, practice supply chain collaboration and engage people towards a common purpose through problem solving. The most successful lean manufacturers have demonstrated the ability to apply standardization without killing creativity through conformity.
We can learn from them, but unless we agree on definitions of the basic words we are using and whether they in fact apply with equal meaning to separate situations such as industry and education, it is likely that this debate on standards and their role in continuous improvement will rage on.Comments are moderated to filter spam and inappropriate content. There may be a delay before your comment is published.